Can somebody frame a letter that we can use to report L1 fraud. And, folks its big companies like accenture and hewitt too exploting loopholes in L1. in my current place, most of experienced workers will be replaced by folks on L1. I dont want to come across as negative. My only point is if there are any violations, lets report it and have everybody follow the rules and regulations...
wallpaper wallpaper amber rose kanye
web illitrate
1. If a Receipt Number is issued for a I-485, does it necessarily mean that the case won't outright be rejected for a missing document/ evidence, but instead an RFE will be issued?
2. When a receipt number is issued for a I-485, and if we send out the missing document/initial evidence using the allocated A#, is there a good likelihood that the evidence/document will make it to the appropriate file?
Answers to these will help make a decision on filing multiple I-485's where the first I-485 missed some initial evidence.
Thanks!
One more thing: I was about to make another private consultation call today. I pledge contributing $200 if I find a concrete answer to this issue without having to consult one more lawyer.
My laywer ( a known one, but not the regulars here) also didn't include EVL. When i asked him about it, he said whether we include it now or not, they will issue an RFE at the time of adjudication. I was content with that, but after reading about it more here, i pressed him again about the issue and the new memo. He said he does not foresee a denial because of this, but if i'm worried we will send the EVL along with a cover letter and the RN. But filing another 485 is not advisable. I'm working on the EVL, and once he is less busy after Aug 17th i will ask him to send it. And i hope it will make it to the right file if we include the RN and A#, just like replying to an RFE.
btw, to answer #1, i did get RN so i would think the case may not be outright rejected for missing evidence. I did FP and my LUD was changed for 485 and 131. I filed 765 later and that also has an LUD after FP.
2. When a receipt number is issued for a I-485, and if we send out the missing document/initial evidence using the allocated A#, is there a good likelihood that the evidence/document will make it to the appropriate file?
Answers to these will help make a decision on filing multiple I-485's where the first I-485 missed some initial evidence.
Thanks!
One more thing: I was about to make another private consultation call today. I pledge contributing $200 if I find a concrete answer to this issue without having to consult one more lawyer.
My laywer ( a known one, but not the regulars here) also didn't include EVL. When i asked him about it, he said whether we include it now or not, they will issue an RFE at the time of adjudication. I was content with that, but after reading about it more here, i pressed him again about the issue and the new memo. He said he does not foresee a denial because of this, but if i'm worried we will send the EVL along with a cover letter and the RN. But filing another 485 is not advisable. I'm working on the EVL, and once he is less busy after Aug 17th i will ask him to send it. And i hope it will make it to the right file if we include the RN and A#, just like replying to an RFE.
btw, to answer #1, i did get RN so i would think the case may not be outright rejected for missing evidence. I did FP and my LUD was changed for 485 and 131. I filed 765 later and that also has an LUD after FP.
2011 Photos Amber Rose - La tenue
Lets say DOS revises bulletin on july 2, does that mean applications recieved on july 2 are accepted and all applications recieved after 2 will be rejected or will USCIS reject all applications recieved on july 2 also.
I don't think any one knows the answer at this point. But I think it is better to mail applications until you see the bulletin (and dates go back). Nothing to loose except the courier fee. If USCIS want to return the applications so be it, at least you have a chance just in case they accept some (to some date).
I don't think any one knows the answer at this point. But I think it is better to mail applications until you see the bulletin (and dates go back). Nothing to loose except the courier fee. If USCIS want to return the applications so be it, at least you have a chance just in case they accept some (to some date).
Hello every one,
I am starting this thread for all of us not to just think about the GC process. If any one is residing here for 10 years without GC, think about making a law which can lead us to Citizenship. My thoughts on this:
Many of our colleagues who landed with us during the late 90s (1998, 1999) and early 2000, who got their GC without any issues are now Citizens or waiting to become Citizen soon.
What is our status?. Just think. Still we are strugling to get the GC. Even by law change, if we are getting the GC this year (by GOD's Grace), then we need to wait for another 5 years from now (approximately 2014). Many persons like me who have come to this Country in their later career will be very much affected due to this delay (we have lot of other issues like the dependents reaching the age of 21 etc., College, University fees etc.,).
Core team and every one, please consider this and try to lobby for getting the citizenship without further wait if the persons satisfy the folowing conditions:
1. If they are legally here for 10 years (With approved I-140 and waiting for Adjustment of Status without current date).
2. If they have earned full 40 points in Social Security
3. If they have paid the tax continuously for 10 years
4. If they own a house and paying Mortgage (adding weightage to the Economy boost)
and
5. If they do not have any criminal records in these 10 years.
Please again do not just concentrate on the GC issues. Consider this and if any one can come with a letter draft with legal openion, we can send it to all Congress members, State Governers etc.,
Hope the members and the Core team consider this issue. I have one more thread on this, which I started some months back but the response was not that good. If every one of us unite on this and raise this to the Congress, I think the new Government may consider as this is very genuine.
Agree with this approach. I'd rather ask big and settle for less than ask for less and settle for nothing! We really need to emphasize the point that we have been here for years legally paying taxes, other fees imposed on us NOT knowing the end state. Remember only the squeaky wheel gets the greese. More over there is never a good time, at least I have not seen one in the past 13 years, time always bring new challenges and issues but unless we speak up we dont make it to their priority list for consideration.
I am starting this thread for all of us not to just think about the GC process. If any one is residing here for 10 years without GC, think about making a law which can lead us to Citizenship. My thoughts on this:
Many of our colleagues who landed with us during the late 90s (1998, 1999) and early 2000, who got their GC without any issues are now Citizens or waiting to become Citizen soon.
What is our status?. Just think. Still we are strugling to get the GC. Even by law change, if we are getting the GC this year (by GOD's Grace), then we need to wait for another 5 years from now (approximately 2014). Many persons like me who have come to this Country in their later career will be very much affected due to this delay (we have lot of other issues like the dependents reaching the age of 21 etc., College, University fees etc.,).
Core team and every one, please consider this and try to lobby for getting the citizenship without further wait if the persons satisfy the folowing conditions:
1. If they are legally here for 10 years (With approved I-140 and waiting for Adjustment of Status without current date).
2. If they have earned full 40 points in Social Security
3. If they have paid the tax continuously for 10 years
4. If they own a house and paying Mortgage (adding weightage to the Economy boost)
and
5. If they do not have any criminal records in these 10 years.
Please again do not just concentrate on the GC issues. Consider this and if any one can come with a letter draft with legal openion, we can send it to all Congress members, State Governers etc.,
Hope the members and the Core team consider this issue. I have one more thread on this, which I started some months back but the response was not that good. If every one of us unite on this and raise this to the Congress, I think the new Government may consider as this is very genuine.
Agree with this approach. I'd rather ask big and settle for less than ask for less and settle for nothing! We really need to emphasize the point that we have been here for years legally paying taxes, other fees imposed on us NOT knowing the end state. Remember only the squeaky wheel gets the greese. More over there is never a good time, at least I have not seen one in the past 13 years, time always bring new challenges and issues but unless we speak up we dont make it to their priority list for consideration.
banners and posters are here
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=4&id=13&Itemid=36
Maybe you or others can take a lead in this campaign and have everyone use IV posters and banners..
Hello Pappu,
I feel we should have some banners up in different Indian stores, specially targeting some selfish EAD holders, who already feel they got their green cards irrespective of the current visa bulletin
1. Setting up banners will not only attract new members, but will make these EAD holders think from a rational perspective.
2.Also IV administration should send out a personal email to all it members, informing them about the importance of coming together, this way the EAD members who have stopped coming to IV will get the message.
3. We should contact the Indian newspaper editors, to print about our rally on March1st 2009, I believe more awareness we spread a better result we get.
Thank you
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=4&id=13&Itemid=36
Maybe you or others can take a lead in this campaign and have everyone use IV posters and banners..
Hello Pappu,
I feel we should have some banners up in different Indian stores, specially targeting some selfish EAD holders, who already feel they got their green cards irrespective of the current visa bulletin
1. Setting up banners will not only attract new members, but will make these EAD holders think from a rational perspective.
2.Also IV administration should send out a personal email to all it members, informing them about the importance of coming together, this way the EAD members who have stopped coming to IV will get the message.
3. We should contact the Indian newspaper editors, to print about our rally on March1st 2009, I believe more awareness we spread a better result we get.
Thank you
July 2nd
2010 See All Amber Rose Pics »
Did anyone see any Soft LUDs on their 485 or old EADs before their approvals/RFEs?
My PD is June 7 2006, not current. Yesterday, I had a soft LUD on my 485 and my first EAD. These two haven't seen any activity since early 2009, and I'm wondering if this means anything or if I'm reading into this a little too much.
thanks,
My PD is June 7 2006, not current. Yesterday, I had a soft LUD on my 485 and my first EAD. These two haven't seen any activity since early 2009, and I'm wondering if this means anything or if I'm reading into this a little too much.
thanks,
Hi,
Can anyone share their expert views on this scenario.
Say, I have approved I-140 (current PD) from employer A (never worked with). Work with employer B in a different. Now if employer A applies for I-485 and after it is pending for 6 months, Can I invoke AC21 to continue the GC process while still with employer B ?
Also is it possible to have 2 separate I-485 filed from different employers.
I have heard the above is possible. But, I am curious as to how AC21 is interpreted. Isn't AC21 essentially an instrument to change jobs without hampering the GC process. In this case since one is not 'really switching jobs' how will this be treated or possible ?
Thank You.
Can anyone share their expert views on this scenario.
Say, I have approved I-140 (current PD) from employer A (never worked with). Work with employer B in a different. Now if employer A applies for I-485 and after it is pending for 6 months, Can I invoke AC21 to continue the GC process while still with employer B ?
Also is it possible to have 2 separate I-485 filed from different employers.
I have heard the above is possible. But, I am curious as to how AC21 is interpreted. Isn't AC21 essentially an instrument to change jobs without hampering the GC process. In this case since one is not 'really switching jobs' how will this be treated or possible ?
Thank You.
hair Amber Rose Saves Kanye#39;s Life
Got CPO email around 10.45 am today for both me and my wife. Big thanks to IV. Big thanks to Pappu, Jay, Aman, Anu ad all my wonderful IV friends. I will also continue supporting Iv and activities time to time.
Congratulations, Chandu! You've been very helpful on these forums, especially when it came to those goddamned wrongful 485 denials. So I'd like to thank you, and wish you the best for the future.
Congratulations, Chandu! You've been very helpful on these forums, especially when it came to those goddamned wrongful 485 denials. So I'd like to thank you, and wish you the best for the future.
My point is not everyone wud then leave Vonage and move to another service , thats how Vonage wud gain, again are u sure u read the complete fine print :P
If they change the "contract" you agreed to initially - then you have every right to get out of the contract without any termination fees. It may take some arguing with the CS - but I know some people who have done this successfully with telephone companies like Verizone/Sprint etc when they changed some inconsequencial T&C.
If they change the "contract" you agreed to initially - then you have every right to get out of the contract without any termination fees. It may take some arguing with the CS - but I know some people who have done this successfully with telephone companies like Verizone/Sprint etc when they changed some inconsequencial T&C.
hot seen on Amber Rose at the
but it is pending with FBI since Aug 1st. Looks like they also check for fragmented names.
This is my opinion, not an advise. Use it at your own risk.
How to find out if you name check has been done/cleared.
This is my opinion, not an advise. Use it at your own risk.
How to find out if you name check has been done/cleared.
house Amber Rose Does Complex
Although much older anouncements and news are still there.
Apparently they want everybody to forget about this ASAP, let alone attract any further interest or god forbid inquiries. I don't know who in the world can still beleive that they are a "service" and we are "customers".
I pity Gonzales now, may be Chertoff called him up and said why on the earth is he responding to flower campaign? Or may be Walter Reed Soldiers refused to accept mourning flowers. LOL....
I smell something fishy... is it just me???
Apparently they want everybody to forget about this ASAP, let alone attract any further interest or god forbid inquiries. I don't know who in the world can still beleive that they are a "service" and we are "customers".
I pity Gonzales now, may be Chertoff called him up and said why on the earth is he responding to flower campaign? Or may be Walter Reed Soldiers refused to accept mourning flowers. LOL....
I smell something fishy... is it just me???
tattoo Amber Rose at Boa in West
What stopped (from legal stand point) MBA guy to file for eb3 based GC in 2003? Remember both have BS in Engineering at that time. No employer was ready to file GC for the MBA guy (in 2003) is not a valid legal argument.
Exactly :).
If the MBA guy had told the employer that he is willing to take up an EB3 job, he would have gladly filed a GC.
I am expecting another red now
Exactly :).
If the MBA guy had told the employer that he is willing to take up an EB3 job, he would have gladly filed a GC.
I am expecting another red now
pictures about it Amber Rose isn#39;t
My $0.02. This could be a pre-emptive measure on the part of AILA. There must have been some talk at the state department of mid-month regression. This might be a strategy to scotch that. Raise a ruckus and send a message that we are prepared to file a law suit. Who knows? We are mere pawns in this grand game. Whatever happens, I hope people keep some perspective and not lose sleep over this.
- Sri
AILA members already milked enough $$$ for this year ..they will be first happy if dates go back ..repeat clients:)
- Sri
AILA members already milked enough $$$ for this year ..they will be first happy if dates go back ..repeat clients:)
dresses Posted in Amber Rose:
I checked some family based data and Date jumps 2-3 years once in a 2-3 year period and NVC gets enough files to work on for next 2-3 years , so dates moves slowly for next 2-3 years. USCIS learned lesson from July 2007 and may follow same approach what NVC do.
They might go upto 2008 or 2009 in advance this year or next year so they have almost 20-30 k Eb2 cases on hand which can last for year or two. USCIS needs some new cases to work on. All pre adjudicated cases are ready for approval so chances are there they can advance date so that they can get enough cases for next year's spill over quota.
They might go upto 2008 or 2009 in advance this year or next year so they have almost 20-30 k Eb2 cases on hand which can last for year or two. USCIS needs some new cases to work on. All pre adjudicated cases are ready for approval so chances are there they can advance date so that they can get enough cases for next year's spill over quota.
makeup AMBER ROSE!
Immigration Voice Represents All Nationalities:
Although the recent Reuters article mentions the flower campaign as an "Indian" effort, the flowers were sent by nationals of numerious countries to USCIS and this organization represents all nationals affected by visa backlogs and the visa bulletin fiasco. Immigration Voice recognizes and appreciates the contributions and participation of the members of all nationalities. This is not an "Indian" effort, its an effort supported and organized by all the legal skilled immigrants stuck in visa backlogs.
From IV Core group.
Although the recent Reuters article mentions the flower campaign as an "Indian" effort, the flowers were sent by nationals of numerious countries to USCIS and this organization represents all nationals affected by visa backlogs and the visa bulletin fiasco. Immigration Voice recognizes and appreciates the contributions and participation of the members of all nationalities. This is not an "Indian" effort, its an effort supported and organized by all the legal skilled immigrants stuck in visa backlogs.
From IV Core group.
girlfriend Kanye West amp; Amber Rose In NYC
-------------------------------------
Based on the criteria above I dont see how it is illegal to ask what type of work authorization one has, and if EAD , how long it is valid. It may be illegal to disqualify a candidate who has EAD with validity for the required amount of time. But I sure can ask about the details within legal limits, can't I?
-------------------------------------
It is illegal... On I-9 it clearly says that an employer can not deny employment because of an expiry date on a valid work authorization document. This makes sense, since the employer does not have any authority to check for this candidate's ability to renew the authorization, neither the candidate is obligated to share that information. Per DHS & DOL once you have valid EAD, you are good to go! I am curious though who should be responsible for educating these employers!:confused:
Based on the criteria above I dont see how it is illegal to ask what type of work authorization one has, and if EAD , how long it is valid. It may be illegal to disqualify a candidate who has EAD with validity for the required amount of time. But I sure can ask about the details within legal limits, can't I?
-------------------------------------
It is illegal... On I-9 it clearly says that an employer can not deny employment because of an expiry date on a valid work authorization document. This makes sense, since the employer does not have any authority to check for this candidate's ability to renew the authorization, neither the candidate is obligated to share that information. Per DHS & DOL once you have valid EAD, you are good to go! I am curious though who should be responsible for educating these employers!:confused:
hairstyles kanye-west-amber-rose-bar copy
Man you made my day... atleast i can be happy for coming three weeks, then i will go back to normal after Visa Bulletin Copy/paste.
Ha Ha Ha .....
MC you are an eternal pessimist !!!
Ha Ha Ha .....
MC you are an eternal pessimist !!!
JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, Lou, you�ve been well known for years now, especially dealing with the issue of American corporations exporting jobs and criticizing that whole process of exporting American jobs overseas.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your�but also the criticism of it, that as I�ve seen it as, oftentimes does not deal with the impact so much of what this globalization on those countries themselves. In other words, you criticize NAFTA for sending so many jobs overseas, but not with the impact so much that it�s having on Mexico and on these other countries that are the other end of this free trade.
LOU DOBBS: Juan, that may be because I�m a television journalist, limited in my intellect, as well as my time.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, on this show, we don�t have commercials, so we have a lot of time to get into the issues.
LOU DOBBS: The reality is that, of course, NAFTA is, in my judgment, at least deleterious to the interests of the Mexican people and to the state of Mexico. One only has to look at the empty villages in particularly southern Mexico to examine the impact of the agricultural policies within NAFTA. One only has to look at the maquiladoras across northern Mexico to see the impact on a society that is already 50% impoverished, education levels still where they were thirty years ago in Mexico.
But my perspective is an American one. And I won�t presume to speak for Mexico, as Felipe Calderon does presume to speak to the United States for Americans on American policy. The reality is that NAFTA doesn�t work for this country. It doesn�t work for Mexico.
But I am not one of those people�as Amy was talking about, my detractors. The suggestion I�m anti-immigrant, for example, is absurd. I would support an increase in lawful immigration and have said so repeatedly and have no problem whatsoever with current levels of immigration, which, by the way, are the highest levels of immigration in the world�in fact, more than the rest of the world combined. We bring in more than two million people. But the issue is one that the United States does not have a foreign policy toward Mexico. We�re paternalistic and condescending toward Mexico in our dealings with Mexico, both corporately and politically. And it�s time for that to change.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your�but also the criticism of it, that as I�ve seen it as, oftentimes does not deal with the impact so much of what this globalization on those countries themselves. In other words, you criticize NAFTA for sending so many jobs overseas, but not with the impact so much that it�s having on Mexico and on these other countries that are the other end of this free trade.
LOU DOBBS: Juan, that may be because I�m a television journalist, limited in my intellect, as well as my time.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, on this show, we don�t have commercials, so we have a lot of time to get into the issues.
LOU DOBBS: The reality is that, of course, NAFTA is, in my judgment, at least deleterious to the interests of the Mexican people and to the state of Mexico. One only has to look at the empty villages in particularly southern Mexico to examine the impact of the agricultural policies within NAFTA. One only has to look at the maquiladoras across northern Mexico to see the impact on a society that is already 50% impoverished, education levels still where they were thirty years ago in Mexico.
But my perspective is an American one. And I won�t presume to speak for Mexico, as Felipe Calderon does presume to speak to the United States for Americans on American policy. The reality is that NAFTA doesn�t work for this country. It doesn�t work for Mexico.
But I am not one of those people�as Amy was talking about, my detractors. The suggestion I�m anti-immigrant, for example, is absurd. I would support an increase in lawful immigration and have said so repeatedly and have no problem whatsoever with current levels of immigration, which, by the way, are the highest levels of immigration in the world�in fact, more than the rest of the world combined. We bring in more than two million people. But the issue is one that the United States does not have a foreign policy toward Mexico. We�re paternalistic and condescending toward Mexico in our dealings with Mexico, both corporately and politically. And it�s time for that to change.
How would it be to forward the media coverage links to all the attorneys so that they are aware of what is happening and also provide some kind of support or atleast get associated with IV. Also some members may take the initiative of posting these links to thier blogs so that every one will get to know about the IV through others blogs.
