thamizhan
07-18 10:39 AM
Check this out....
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Gandhigiri_works_US_to_give_more_Green_Cards/articleshow/2215001.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Gandhigiri_works_US_to_give_more_Green_Cards/articleshow/2215001.cms
wallpaper cristiano ronaldo wallpaper
gcformeornot
04-04 07:39 AM
need to in good condition from your PD. So whatever adjustments they are doing needs to be done since PD. I hope your lawyer knows this.
InTheMoment
06-29 01:01 AM
Yabadaba,
I am in a similar situation with no new stamp or I-94 while last entry into the US from Canada at a land border crossing. This is the date/place that I had mentioned in my I-485.
See
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=158111
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=145094&page=1&pp=15&highlight=canada
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=165295
There is a mighty good probabilty that we will get an RFE to
establish proof of inspection of entry into the US
So...start getting together any proofs for that:D that said it is fairly easy to take care RFE
PART 3
Place of Last Entry Into the United States (City/State)
What should i put over here? I did not get an arrival stamp when i came back from canada last month after stamping. all the immigration officer did was tear the bottom portion of the h1b approval and staple it to the passport. he said that was my I-94
I am in a similar situation with no new stamp or I-94 while last entry into the US from Canada at a land border crossing. This is the date/place that I had mentioned in my I-485.
See
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=158111
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=145094&page=1&pp=15&highlight=canada
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=165295
There is a mighty good probabilty that we will get an RFE to
establish proof of inspection of entry into the US
So...start getting together any proofs for that:D that said it is fairly easy to take care RFE
PART 3
Place of Last Entry Into the United States (City/State)
What should i put over here? I did not get an arrival stamp when i came back from canada last month after stamping. all the immigration officer did was tear the bottom portion of the h1b approval and staple it to the passport. he said that was my I-94
2011 Cristiano Ronaldo Wallpaper
vadicherla
11-05 09:11 AM
I just voted
more...
mpgc
10-16 04:56 PM
Hi,
My green card petition was applied under "Computer and Information Systems Manager" job title. Recently, I get a full-time job offer from another employer with a much lesser salary but, considering the current job market and economy, I've no other option but to accept it. There's one little kink in this new situation: the title for the job I've applied for labor does not match with the one I'm offered (Software Engineer)
These are my questions:
1. Do I really need to apply AC21 now?
2. If I apply AC21 with Software Engineer title what could be the consequence
3. What if I try to get a letter from my new employer with job title as Computer and Information Systems Manager or some similar title. Do you think it'll work?
If anyone has better idea, please advise me. I'd really appreciate all your help.
Thank you very much...
My green card petition was applied under "Computer and Information Systems Manager" job title. Recently, I get a full-time job offer from another employer with a much lesser salary but, considering the current job market and economy, I've no other option but to accept it. There's one little kink in this new situation: the title for the job I've applied for labor does not match with the one I'm offered (Software Engineer)
These are my questions:
1. Do I really need to apply AC21 now?
2. If I apply AC21 with Software Engineer title what could be the consequence
3. What if I try to get a letter from my new employer with job title as Computer and Information Systems Manager or some similar title. Do you think it'll work?
If anyone has better idea, please advise me. I'd really appreciate all your help.
Thank you very much...
va_12_2004
07-20 07:59 AM
And ask many Indians,Chinese etc about their namecheck experience :-)
But this won't be easy "Do you want us to compromise on national security", will be the first question asked . They will acknowledge the applicants pain and won't budge . "We know thousands like you are getting screwed for many years, but national security is foremost'.
I really hope they rely on electronic documents and don't push paper from one office to another.
I do not believe that keeping a really bad guy under ead for years is helping the national security any way. It is totally ridiculus when they talk about national security for anything. I believe that, they randomly pick some cases to create intentional delay, and tell their bosses, and who in turn tells American people that they are doing a job.
Screaming baby always get more milk, and if we scream it would be legitimate, and we have to scream being united. PLease keep this thread going and create awareness among newbies(to uscis). This is inevitable that most of us will get into this mess.
There will be 2 more backlog centers:
1) USCIS
2) FBI
Unfortunately most of us will rot in both, unless we take action. It might sound funny now, but it is inevitable.
But this won't be easy "Do you want us to compromise on national security", will be the first question asked . They will acknowledge the applicants pain and won't budge . "We know thousands like you are getting screwed for many years, but national security is foremost'.
I really hope they rely on electronic documents and don't push paper from one office to another.
I do not believe that keeping a really bad guy under ead for years is helping the national security any way. It is totally ridiculus when they talk about national security for anything. I believe that, they randomly pick some cases to create intentional delay, and tell their bosses, and who in turn tells American people that they are doing a job.
Screaming baby always get more milk, and if we scream it would be legitimate, and we have to scream being united. PLease keep this thread going and create awareness among newbies(to uscis). This is inevitable that most of us will get into this mess.
There will be 2 more backlog centers:
1) USCIS
2) FBI
Unfortunately most of us will rot in both, unless we take action. It might sound funny now, but it is inevitable.
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
2010 cristiano ronaldo 2011
asanghi
07-17 06:50 PM
I am overjoyed to the extent of tearing up!! I cannot thank IV and all the people who have made an effort at turning this table.
How must I thank you all? Really I mean it from the bottom of my heart, You guys have done such an incredible job!!! When there was no hope, you have made me believe in one thing for sure - Where there is will, there is a way.
Thank you!!!!! You have made many people happy and I am sure everyone is blessing this team and all the people who have worked for it so hard.
Always will remember this day. I will continue to help and be a part of this team.
Perhaps new members are not aware that core members have spent money out of their pockets in the range of $20000-$30000 for the cause of IV. So one way to really thank them would be to contribute generously.
How must I thank you all? Really I mean it from the bottom of my heart, You guys have done such an incredible job!!! When there was no hope, you have made me believe in one thing for sure - Where there is will, there is a way.
Thank you!!!!! You have made many people happy and I am sure everyone is blessing this team and all the people who have worked for it so hard.
Always will remember this day. I will continue to help and be a part of this team.
Perhaps new members are not aware that core members have spent money out of their pockets in the range of $20000-$30000 for the cause of IV. So one way to really thank them would be to contribute generously.
more...
priderock
07-12 01:23 PM
TANA reportedly paid Mr Clinton million dollars for the fund raising dinner/speech. I am not sure how it helps though. I have not seen them raise voice to address our issues.
hair real madrid wallpapers 2011.
mnq1979
01-29 10:54 AM
Dear All,
I need urgent information that how to file Advance Parole application. My I485 application is pending with USCIS and now i need to travel to my country as my uncle is very sick. I am planning to fill out the application by myself and not by the lawyer as he is ripping me off. Can any one help me how to fill out the application although it seems very easy but i dont want to make any kind of mistakes.
In part 1, field (3) of the application it asks me for "Class of Admission" i am not sure wat to write in it. NEED HELP IN THIS FIELD.
In part 3, field (1) and field (2) can i write "Various" as I want my document to be valid for multiple visits OR do i need to put any date.
I also need some guidance that what kind of letter I should make where it asks that "On a separate sheet(s) of paper, please explain how you qualify for an advance parole document and what circumstances warrant issuance of advance parole. * Include copies of any documents you wish considered."
Please, please help me in this regards.
I would really appreciate if any one can help me out in this matter.
Hi,
My wife's I-485 is currently pending. Along with the I-485, an I-131, and I-765application was filed on July 31, 2007. As you know, the process time frame for the I-131 is 90 days. The I-131 was being a bit delayed due to the amount of fillings from the new fee increases. Over 120 days later in mid Dec. I still had not received confirmation.
Unfortunately, I just purchased tickets to travel overseas to visit family and friends for after Christmas. I emailed my immigration lawyer about the status and they only said that it's still pending.
Over a period of a few days my wife and I contacted USCIS to check on the status, and we found out that there was an error on her date of birth. That very day the date of birth was corrected and the I-131 was expedited and we received the documents in time to travel a few days later.
The immigration lawyer says that the error in the date of birth had little to none effect on why the I-131 was delayed. Instead he believes the delay was because he didn't receive tax documents from me till Dec. 4., which he believes is why the I-131 and I-765 was approved on the same day.
However, I asked for a fee reduction due to his lack of service. Due I have a valid argument? Any thoughts welcomed!
I need urgent information that how to file Advance Parole application. My I485 application is pending with USCIS and now i need to travel to my country as my uncle is very sick. I am planning to fill out the application by myself and not by the lawyer as he is ripping me off. Can any one help me how to fill out the application although it seems very easy but i dont want to make any kind of mistakes.
In part 1, field (3) of the application it asks me for "Class of Admission" i am not sure wat to write in it. NEED HELP IN THIS FIELD.
In part 3, field (1) and field (2) can i write "Various" as I want my document to be valid for multiple visits OR do i need to put any date.
I also need some guidance that what kind of letter I should make where it asks that "On a separate sheet(s) of paper, please explain how you qualify for an advance parole document and what circumstances warrant issuance of advance parole. * Include copies of any documents you wish considered."
Please, please help me in this regards.
I would really appreciate if any one can help me out in this matter.
Hi,
My wife's I-485 is currently pending. Along with the I-485, an I-131, and I-765application was filed on July 31, 2007. As you know, the process time frame for the I-131 is 90 days. The I-131 was being a bit delayed due to the amount of fillings from the new fee increases. Over 120 days later in mid Dec. I still had not received confirmation.
Unfortunately, I just purchased tickets to travel overseas to visit family and friends for after Christmas. I emailed my immigration lawyer about the status and they only said that it's still pending.
Over a period of a few days my wife and I contacted USCIS to check on the status, and we found out that there was an error on her date of birth. That very day the date of birth was corrected and the I-131 was expedited and we received the documents in time to travel a few days later.
The immigration lawyer says that the error in the date of birth had little to none effect on why the I-131 was delayed. Instead he believes the delay was because he didn't receive tax documents from me till Dec. 4., which he believes is why the I-131 and I-765 was approved on the same day.
However, I asked for a fee reduction due to his lack of service. Due I have a valid argument? Any thoughts welcomed!
more...
indygc
12-22 12:24 AM
Thanks guys for all your inputs.
God bless redcard & IVG*..give them some peace.
God bless redcard & IVG*..give them some peace.
hot C.ronaldo+real+madrid+2011
bekugc
05-07 11:29 AM
coolest_me;
a friend of mine had got same RFE as u back in 2005. he had gotten all the vaccinations properly, yet this came. it was just a error on the behalf of the surgeon perhaps. My friend had the doctor redispatch the document in reply to the RFE and it got accepted. the doctor did not charge any extra fee since he was at fault. this cud be just a rare /routine paperwork mistake. infact my friends wife dint get this problem, only the primary appln had this mistake.
if u personally donot know the doctor, then take any receipt or printout from past visit to remind him that ur on his file and ur vaccination history ( if completed in thefirst place) can be located. you dont have to worry much according to me. also if ur PD is current, then its good news, ur appln is sorta woken up and once u reply to rfe u cud see +ve movement.
a friend of mine had got same RFE as u back in 2005. he had gotten all the vaccinations properly, yet this came. it was just a error on the behalf of the surgeon perhaps. My friend had the doctor redispatch the document in reply to the RFE and it got accepted. the doctor did not charge any extra fee since he was at fault. this cud be just a rare /routine paperwork mistake. infact my friends wife dint get this problem, only the primary appln had this mistake.
if u personally donot know the doctor, then take any receipt or printout from past visit to remind him that ur on his file and ur vaccination history ( if completed in thefirst place) can be located. you dont have to worry much according to me. also if ur PD is current, then its good news, ur appln is sorta woken up and once u reply to rfe u cud see +ve movement.
more...
house Cristiano ronaldo wallpaper 10
diesel
03-01 09:29 AM
Now they are saying 17 months (until 9/30/2007)
Is a year 10 months? What kind of math is this? :confused:
Is a year 10 months? What kind of math is this? :confused:
tattoo 2011 wallpaper real madrid;
svam77
07-18 07:05 PM
Thanks for the replies !! I have everything ready as I was planning for concurrent filing. But since the decision was changed on July 2nd, my attorney just filed I 140.
sure, I would sign up for the contribution.
sure, I would sign up for the contribution.
more...
pictures 2011 wallpaper real madrid;
sportsguy131
07-31 02:43 PM
My Grandfather applied for my mom in Family Based GreenCard under First Preference category.
He filed -
I-130,
his citizenship forms
He filed -
I-130,
his citizenship forms
dresses cristiano ronaldo 2011
fromnaija
07-25 12:20 PM
You don't sign I-140, your employer does. Only exception - self-petitions.
Anybody knows how USCIS will process un signed I-140 Petition? I filed for Labor substituion and I-140. I forgot to sign the I-140 petition.
May I know the implications of this? What all are the possibilities ? Will they reject the application?
Anybody knows how USCIS will process un signed I-140 Petition? I filed for Labor substituion and I-140. I forgot to sign the I-140 petition.
May I know the implications of this? What all are the possibilities ? Will they reject the application?
more...
makeup cristiano ronaldo wallpaper
kumar.yerr
12-15 10:05 PM
Hi Rb_newsletter,
I thought more paystubs is good. That is why I showed all the paystubs I have.
Regards..
I thought more paystubs is good. That is why I showed all the paystubs I have.
Regards..
girlfriend c.ronaldo real madrid 2011
vnsriv
08-14 03:30 PM
Please update on who received their FP notices:
485 RD:
485 ND:
FP ND:
FP Date:
Got spouse's
485 RD:
485 ND:
FP ND:
FP Date:
Got spouse's
hairstyles tattoo Cristiano ronaldo
averagedesi
08-23 09:49 PM
I will be surprised if I am the only unlucky guy
TigerAmit
09-23 04:55 PM
Hows your question relates to this thread ? Did you post your concern in error ?
varadan73
12-12 01:00 PM
What if i leave it just like that?
