friend99
10-08 05:37 PM
Hi,
I had a question regarding the july bulletin where it was mentioned that Old fees is entertained for employment based petetions while family based it would be new fees for I485.
Mine was applied by my company on July 2nd with old fees and Spouse's was applied on August 3rd with old fee and was rejected! I-140 was approved on August 8th and applied in March 2007!
Did they confuse with family based and rejected for fees?
Spouse should also be employment based right!
Can somebody answer my question or suggest any other possibilities for rejection?
Thanks,
I had a question regarding the july bulletin where it was mentioned that Old fees is entertained for employment based petetions while family based it would be new fees for I485.
Mine was applied by my company on July 2nd with old fees and Spouse's was applied on August 3rd with old fee and was rejected! I-140 was approved on August 8th and applied in March 2007!
Did they confuse with family based and rejected for fees?
Spouse should also be employment based right!
Can somebody answer my question or suggest any other possibilities for rejection?
Thanks,
wallpaper Background Power Point. power
vedicman
04-28 09:55 AM
Thank you. I checked it out. My nephew (7yrs) also plans to come for 3 weeks with my in laws. He has never been to the US before, and his parents are not coming either. The site mentioned that parents visa papers also have to be attached, I am not sure what this means. (His parents have never applied for the visa)
Your inputs are much appreciated. Thanks
Your inputs are much appreciated. Thanks
roseball
04-21 05:09 PM
My friend and his wife re-entered US on AP a couple of weeks ago....They were paroled into US till Apr 2009. Their APs are valid till Oct 2008. Now his wife needs to go back to her home country immediately for a while (not sure how long due to family emergency).... If she doesn't plan to return before her current AP expires, what are her options to re-enter. My friend is still on H1 status valid till 2010, no H1/H4 visa stamps.....If she intends to stay home longer, can she re-enter US on a H4 visa after getting it stamped...If she plans to return before her current AP expires, say in Sep 2008, is it safe to use AP because she will be out of the country for 5 months if she leaves now and we are not sure if someone can stay out of US for that long and re-enter on AP.....Any suggestions...His PD is April 2004 EB-3 India
2011 powerpoint 2007 format
svr_76
06-14 05:18 PM
^^^bump^^^
more...
dammeinmarrtin
08-10 01:56 AM
My wife and I got married here in the Phil.He wants to file for an immigrant visa.We've been searching on the internet for some info but unfortunately we have some problem with some sites coz we cant get access to it.I also want to know how long it'll take to process an immigrant visa and the fees.
aniltatikonda
05-09 02:00 PM
As far as i know, what ever you said is right. if your priority date is current and also your processing date then you can actually contact your local senator stating the same which will/may resolve the problem
more...
coolfun
07-15 01:35 PM
bump
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2010 ackgrounds for powerpoint
Blog Feeds
10-18 08:20 AM
Stuart Anderson, one of the top thinkers on immigration policy, has written a new paper for the National Foundation for American Policy entitled "A New Immigrant Entrepreneur Visa Aimed at Job Creation in America". Unlike the EB-5 investor visa, this one would be aimed at encouraging start up businesses that create jobs as opposed to looking stictly at maximizing the dollars invested. Here's the quick summary: In designing the new immigrant visa, the key is to avoid the type of high capital requirements ($500,000 or more) present in the current immigrant investor visa category or other immigration proposals. The average...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/10/nfap-time-for-an-entrepreneur-visa.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/10/nfap-time-for-an-entrepreneur-visa.html)
more...
gc_dedo
04-09 12:04 PM
EB3 NSC applied 7/11/2007
LUD 3/27/2008
LUD 3/27/2008
hair ackgrounds for powerpoint
waitiktsang
11-30 04:12 AM
Hi,
I am lawful permanent resident of United States, my I-130 is going to be expired on July, 2010, the last time I returned to United States was on October, 2009 and also depart on October, 2009.
I am now planned to return and live in the US for good on September, 2010, however by that time, my I-130 will be expired. Since my last time I left from US was on October 2009 and it is less than one year between the date I am going to return to US for good on September 2010. For this case, should I be fine by just holding just my green card to return to US for good.
Please kindly advise.
Thanks
wtt
I am lawful permanent resident of United States, my I-130 is going to be expired on July, 2010, the last time I returned to United States was on October, 2009 and also depart on October, 2009.
I am now planned to return and live in the US for good on September, 2010, however by that time, my I-130 will be expired. Since my last time I left from US was on October 2009 and it is less than one year between the date I am going to return to US for good on September 2010. For this case, should I be fine by just holding just my green card to return to US for good.
Please kindly advise.
Thanks
wtt
more...
buehler
11-26 08:54 PM
They can incorporate a company but they cannot do any work for it( not even write a check) or take any salary from it. But if the person has an EAD, there are very few restrictions.
hot for powerpoint 2007 free.
manja
01-24 08:32 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2891
more...
house Free Powerpoint Templates
GC_1000Watt
01-04 10:55 PM
Hello Gurus,
Please let me know where can I book an appointment for H1B visa extension stamping in Canada and/or Mexico.
Also if you have recently been there for stamping then please share your experience.
The documents that are being asked for and the current trend etc.
thanks in advance.
Please let me know where can I book an appointment for H1B visa extension stamping in Canada and/or Mexico.
Also if you have recently been there for stamping then please share your experience.
The documents that are being asked for and the current trend etc.
thanks in advance.
tattoo powerpoint 2007 format
ka_erp
05-27 04:43 PM
Hello,
Here is my situation.
Status : H1B Visa
GC Status : I-140 Approved in EB3
Priority Date : May 2004
Years on H1B: 9 years
H1B Expire date: 01/2012
Please advice if i can change my employer now or it will be too risky. I was hoping to accept new positions if new employer is willing to sponsor a h1b and green card from begining. So i can retain my previous PD.
Many thanks in advance.
KA_ERP
Here is my situation.
Status : H1B Visa
GC Status : I-140 Approved in EB3
Priority Date : May 2004
Years on H1B: 9 years
H1B Expire date: 01/2012
Please advice if i can change my employer now or it will be too risky. I was hoping to accept new positions if new employer is willing to sponsor a h1b and green card from begining. So i can retain my previous PD.
Many thanks in advance.
KA_ERP
more...
pictures ackgrounds for powerpoint
atul555
06-14 03:57 PM
Since everything is current now, and happy as I am, it jumped quicker on me than i anticipated. I am in precarious position to apply I-485 right away or see it get retrogressed again.
My dilemma is that I am unmarried and want to get married to someone in India, but also take my time selecting my mate.
My question is if I apply for I-485 in july or august, how much time do I have to get married in India and still make my spouse eligible for green card with me.
Thanks
My dilemma is that I am unmarried and want to get married to someone in India, but also take my time selecting my mate.
My question is if I apply for I-485 in july or august, how much time do I have to get married in India and still make my spouse eligible for green card with me.
Thanks
dresses templates gtmar , , royalty
Macaca
07-29 06:14 PM
Partisans Gone Wild (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701691.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter (neverett@princeton.edu) Washington Post, July 29, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
more...
makeup from alternate ackgrounds
gcformeornot
04-23 09:34 AM
what are the security checks involved with the green card process, and when do they come up?
up sometimes during 140 stage(security). But 100% during 485 stage.
The check I know is called "Name Check" done at 485 stage.
up sometimes during 140 stage(security). But 100% during 485 stage.
The check I know is called "Name Check" done at 485 stage.
girlfriend hair Free Powerpoint templates
Nikith77
03-15 09:09 AM
Can you please update your profile.
hairstyles for PowerPoint 2007 Free
paulinasmith
08-05 10:21 AM
Ask them to re-apply PERM as soon as possible.Its faster to re-apply then get the auditted PERM outcome...
xela
01-30 11:13 AM
So I was one of the lucky (yes a bit of sarcasm) people that got transferred in July 2007 to be receipted in California even though we sent the papers to Nebraska. In Sept 2007 they told me they are now transferring my application to Nebraska. And guess what just today I got the update on CRIS that it is now pending at the Nebraska office.
What did they go on vacation for over a year or how can it take that long to transfer something that was never supposed to be transferred in the first place, because I did send it to the correct office, they just decided to move it because of receipting back ups.
What did they go on vacation for over a year or how can it take that long to transfer something that was never supposed to be transferred in the first place, because I did send it to the correct office, they just decided to move it because of receipting back ups.
ekaurgcf
06-01 08:46 PM
Hi Folks,
Can I travel on a valid / approved AP when my H1 Extension is in progress. This is my
situation:
Valid AP in Hand valid till next year.
H1B expiring 6/20/2011
H1B extension applied on 4/7/11 have rcpt notice.
My questions are this:
1.) When I enter US back in with my AP in mid July will that impact my H1B extension in any way.
2.) Without any EAD will I be Jeapordizing my AOS in any way.
I will be continuing to work with the same employer who is the sponsor of my current
I485.
Request your thoughts and inputs on this situation. Appreciate any replies/advices you may have.
Regards.
Can I travel on a valid / approved AP when my H1 Extension is in progress. This is my
situation:
Valid AP in Hand valid till next year.
H1B expiring 6/20/2011
H1B extension applied on 4/7/11 have rcpt notice.
My questions are this:
1.) When I enter US back in with my AP in mid July will that impact my H1B extension in any way.
2.) Without any EAD will I be Jeapordizing my AOS in any way.
I will be continuing to work with the same employer who is the sponsor of my current
I485.
Request your thoughts and inputs on this situation. Appreciate any replies/advices you may have.
Regards.
No comments:
Post a Comment