images Hairstyle With Loose Waves 
Kodi
04-01 06:24 PM
Thank you so much.
So is it correct if I take the annual salary and divide by 52 and then by 40 to get the hourly basis?
So is it correct if I take the annual salary and divide by 52 and then by 40 to get the hourly basis?
wallpaper Jessica Alba#39;s elegant loose
axp817
02-13 02:54 PM
Congratulations on the new job, glad everything worked out for you, even in these difficult times. The hard part is behind you now, replying to the RFE shouldn't be an issue anymore.
Godspeed.
Godspeed.
needhelp!
09-26 12:07 PM
I see the updated text. Good job IV folks!
But it does seem out of place because the whole article is about H1..
But it does seem out of place because the whole article is about H1..
2011 loose curly hairstyles
deepakjain
08-10 04:36 PM
Dude,
now a days predictions have become more like weather forecasting saying that past few years we had rains around this time hence forth it may rain. :p
2010, all those who filed 485 by 2006 will be cleared up and will be given GC, 2010 end there will be another wave of 485 filers who will continue as cash cows for next 5 years for EAD and AP, 2007 july filers will be cleared up by 2012. Do not ask the source of information it is more of stock market and weather forecast were in stocks falls and gains every 5th year and 6th of June is the first day of monsoon in mumbai....:D
No point in giving stess to your grey cells, all are predictive cycle &, process
now a days predictions have become more like weather forecasting saying that past few years we had rains around this time hence forth it may rain. :p
2010, all those who filed 485 by 2006 will be cleared up and will be given GC, 2010 end there will be another wave of 485 filers who will continue as cash cows for next 5 years for EAD and AP, 2007 july filers will be cleared up by 2012. Do not ask the source of information it is more of stock market and weather forecast were in stocks falls and gains every 5th year and 6th of June is the first day of monsoon in mumbai....:D
No point in giving stess to your grey cells, all are predictive cycle &, process
more...
vine93
10-22 06:54 PM
I also faxed it today.
vin
06-12 03:02 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig13jun13,1,432583.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
There are splits within the Republican and Democratic parties over the issue, but both sides say they think they can muster 60 votes -- the number needed to overcome a filibuster -- if they can resolve their procedural issues.
McConnell said he thought it was unlikely the president's visit would sway many Republicans. "I think most senators have pretty well made up their minds where they are on this, and I think there are a reasonable number of Republicans who in the end are likely to help get us get it through," McConnell said in a conference call with reporters.
There are splits within the Republican and Democratic parties over the issue, but both sides say they think they can muster 60 votes -- the number needed to overcome a filibuster -- if they can resolve their procedural issues.
McConnell said he thought it was unlikely the president's visit would sway many Republicans. "I think most senators have pretty well made up their minds where they are on this, and I think there are a reasonable number of Republicans who in the end are likely to help get us get it through," McConnell said in a conference call with reporters.
more...
spicy_guy
08-11 05:57 PM
Again, as I mentioned, we are jumping all over the board with different ideas and opinions. This leads to no where. Someone who has good understanding of USCIS / DOS / Govt procedures should come up with an agenda and move forward from there. We'll need to work with IV leadership team too. (At this time, I don't think they are even looking into this effort, as understandably they have other goals in hand). However, we should approach them with concrete plan of action.
Everyone is willing to Donate $$$. But for what? What are we going to spend that money on?
We need focused efforts.
Lets join hands and maybe the OP can take the lead in preparing the agenda / plan of action.
What say you guys?
Bottom line: I believe we can do! Of course, we need to procure support from multiple sources like some of the ideas mentioned by the posters CompleteAmerica, Talking to senators on Aug 15th, etc.
Everyone is willing to Donate $$$. But for what? What are we going to spend that money on?
We need focused efforts.
Lets join hands and maybe the OP can take the lead in preparing the agenda / plan of action.
What say you guys?
Bottom line: I believe we can do! Of course, we need to procure support from multiple sources like some of the ideas mentioned by the posters CompleteAmerica, Talking to senators on Aug 15th, etc.
2010 wavy hair, hairstyles wavy
ajay
04-13 10:12 AM
A very useful piece of information has been brought to our attention by shiankuraaf.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
It is clearly a well prepared format and nobody has brought this kind of helpful information to our group. We would need people like you and I am sure I will also support this if we are aggressively pursuing it. But again as somebody here said in this discussion that we should be careful about the seriousness of the situation being counted by the lawmakers.
Kudos to you.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
It is clearly a well prepared format and nobody has brought this kind of helpful information to our group. We would need people like you and I am sure I will also support this if we are aggressively pursuing it. But again as somebody here said in this discussion that we should be careful about the seriousness of the situation being counted by the lawmakers.
Kudos to you.
more...
sumansk
04-04 11:52 AM
Hello Guys..
Here is the summary of the H-1 B reform bill introduced last week in Senate..
God Bless All of 'US' !!
http://durbin.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=271783
Here is the summary of the H-1 B reform bill introduced last week in Senate..
God Bless All of 'US' !!
http://durbin.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=271783
hair with long loose waves
delhiguy
07-09 08:39 PM
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
That really makes Sense, I believe USCIS/DOS are smart agencies, and wont do those kind of silly mistakes..
my 2 cents...
That really makes Sense, I believe USCIS/DOS are smart agencies, and wont do those kind of silly mistakes..
more...
nomi
12-12 04:28 PM
Please tell me how can USCIS making all these changes without any Bill in Congress or Senate.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
hot Long hairstyles 2011-2012 are
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
more...
house and loose waves in 2009. loose waves hairstyles. accents her loose waves,
kopra
09-20 05:15 PM
I Agree that the economy is in a mess. But i wouldnt completly blame the Greedy CEO's and board of directors. Some part of this is with the common people . Many of these people took those fancy loans thinking that by buying a million dollar home ( even though they cant afford it) and selling it after an year for 2 million dollars created this issue. Now their debt is our ( tax payers) debt as they walked out .
With the new proposal of Fed pumping in 700 Billion dollars to recuse all these companies will cause inflation and prices will skyrocket.
As a Side note, many immigrants will be going back to their home country just bacause they cant afford these. Numbersusa will be happy as the "numbers" will be going down...
To summarize this briefly.
The rescue plan = Transfer the "crap" from the balance sheet of the banks to the balance sheet of the US gov't and taxpayers. The government is buying rotting potatos for cold hard cash.
Benefits are nearer term, Consequences are longer term.
Consequesces will be:
1) Bigger deficits, budget especially
2) Less Gov't investments in infrastructure, healthcare, education etc. As the money is needed to feed the interest repayments and other obligations.
3) Higher interest rates for everything from mortgages, credit cards auto loans student loans...... you name it.
4) Higher taxes, federal and state and city.
5) Lower US dollar and higher inflation.
Unfortunately for us the recklessness of the management of the economy of this decade will be felt as a drag on progress for a good part our working lifetimes. This was a sad and unnecessary development brought about by pure greed and an ineffective government.
With the new proposal of Fed pumping in 700 Billion dollars to recuse all these companies will cause inflation and prices will skyrocket.
As a Side note, many immigrants will be going back to their home country just bacause they cant afford these. Numbersusa will be happy as the "numbers" will be going down...
To summarize this briefly.
The rescue plan = Transfer the "crap" from the balance sheet of the banks to the balance sheet of the US gov't and taxpayers. The government is buying rotting potatos for cold hard cash.
Benefits are nearer term, Consequences are longer term.
Consequesces will be:
1) Bigger deficits, budget especially
2) Less Gov't investments in infrastructure, healthcare, education etc. As the money is needed to feed the interest repayments and other obligations.
3) Higher interest rates for everything from mortgages, credit cards auto loans student loans...... you name it.
4) Higher taxes, federal and state and city.
5) Lower US dollar and higher inflation.
Unfortunately for us the recklessness of the management of the economy of this decade will be felt as a drag on progress for a good part our working lifetimes. This was a sad and unnecessary development brought about by pure greed and an ineffective government.
tattoo Wavy Hairstyles
snathan
08-21 12:27 PM
I did not marry the man I was engaged to. I came here initially for ONE month and was approved at the airport customs terminal to stay that long. When I got here, it was for a visit with my fiance only. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we broke it off. Thank God! However, I was staying with his uncle and aunt, and they had a disabled man in the house. HE turned out to be my sponsor when they asked me to care for him while they were doing long haul trucking. I agreed to do this and we immediately contacted USCIS to get instructions on what needed to be filed first. With that information in hand, we filed everything they requested. All the stuff on the RFE I received has never been mentioned before now and if it had, it would have been filed along with the rest. There are tons of applications, how is one supposed to know what to file and when if there are no specific instructions? I have gone through all the copies we have of all the required applications and I still do not see anything where all these other forms were to be filed along with the I-485.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
I couldnt understand if you are coming under employment/family based green card or illegal. There is huge backlog and people are waiting around ten years to get the GC. So there is no point in blaming USCIS. You need to contact the top notch Immigration attorney asap. I dont think anyone here would be able to help you in your situation. DON'T waste your time here.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
I couldnt understand if you are coming under employment/family based green card or illegal. There is huge backlog and people are waiting around ten years to get the GC. So there is no point in blaming USCIS. You need to contact the top notch Immigration attorney asap. I dont think anyone here would be able to help you in your situation. DON'T waste your time here.
more...
pictures Unstructured Wave
MDix
02-11 06:56 PM
Dude,
Calm down, PresidenO gave you good comment and you got carried away thinking that President Obama praise you. Just vent your frustration somewhere else.
PresidentO,
I saw your past comment and it seems like you have an Attitude problem.
If something your are not agree or disagree that's fine but there is now way to go this far.
Thanks so much for your kind words.
I don't blame readers who start making noise without basic verification. Most people have difficulty understanding the difference between cap and quota Or Permanent job vs W2 job.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
Calm down, PresidenO gave you good comment and you got carried away thinking that President Obama praise you. Just vent your frustration somewhere else.
PresidentO,
I saw your past comment and it seems like you have an Attitude problem.
If something your are not agree or disagree that's fine but there is now way to go this far.
Thanks so much for your kind words.
I don't blame readers who start making noise without basic verification. Most people have difficulty understanding the difference between cap and quota Or Permanent job vs W2 job.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
dresses Bosworth work waves at the
coolmanasip
03-07 09:45 AM
you are lucky man.....what you say makes sense.......but here is the reality.......
GC process is 3 step process and the lawyer is representing you (485 stage) as well as the employer (labor and 140 stage)........So, if you leave the employer, most lawyers will refuse to continue to represent you unless they authorized in written by the employer....it is a conflict of interest for them.......hence, I think I will go to some other lawyer for AC 21......and thats why the money.....
It is bit shocking to know that one will have to pay for just AC21 notification. I mean, if you already have lawyer associated with your GC file, which I believe, most of us should have either appointed by our employer OR hired by ourselves (Many companies give a choice to hire "your own" lawyer). I understand that since one change the employment, the general criteria is to assume that the lawyer (If paticularly appointed by past employer) is now no more attached to the case. But in truth it is not. Fulfilling AC21 notification is part of the whole end to end package since case remains same unless you notify USCIS to change your attorney. In my case I was given a choice to hire "My Own lawyer" and once I started to work on EAD, virtually now he is my lawyer not "my employer's lawyer" and hence he will be sending AC21 related paperwork to USCIS though he told me that he would not do it right now as he is busy with H1 filing load. And yes no extra cost involved..
GC process is 3 step process and the lawyer is representing you (485 stage) as well as the employer (labor and 140 stage)........So, if you leave the employer, most lawyers will refuse to continue to represent you unless they authorized in written by the employer....it is a conflict of interest for them.......hence, I think I will go to some other lawyer for AC 21......and thats why the money.....
It is bit shocking to know that one will have to pay for just AC21 notification. I mean, if you already have lawyer associated with your GC file, which I believe, most of us should have either appointed by our employer OR hired by ourselves (Many companies give a choice to hire "your own" lawyer). I understand that since one change the employment, the general criteria is to assume that the lawyer (If paticularly appointed by past employer) is now no more attached to the case. But in truth it is not. Fulfilling AC21 notification is part of the whole end to end package since case remains same unless you notify USCIS to change your attorney. In my case I was given a choice to hire "My Own lawyer" and once I started to work on EAD, virtually now he is my lawyer not "my employer's lawyer" and hence he will be sending AC21 related paperwork to USCIS though he told me that he would not do it right now as he is busy with H1 filing load. And yes no extra cost involved..
more...
makeup Loose wavy hairstyles are the
go_gc_way
01-01 10:44 PM
bump /\/\/\/\/\
girlfriend ashley tisdale loose wavy
sledge_hammer
06-08 06:03 PM
Welcome to the club, China! :D
hairstyles finger wave hairstyles.
rolrblade
07-24 11:54 AM
I agree with everybody, unfortunately we already mailed my AOS package on 07/02.
Nothing much I can do now.
Simply_GC:
yes there is an option for you. When you get the I-485 receipot, mail in the employment letter along with copy of 485 receipt (just so they can track) and a another letter stating the oversight.
Nothing much I can do now.
Simply_GC:
yes there is an option for you. When you get the I-485 receipot, mail in the employment letter along with copy of 485 receipt (just so they can track) and a another letter stating the oversight.
WillIWin?
07-24 12:24 PM
This is my law firm. Seems like they have submitted many applications (140 + 485 concurrently) WITHOUT the employment offer letter.
Anyone else with this firm ? Also I see that there are people who have already sent in their 485 applications. My 2 cents:
- Dont send in multiple 485s (with the same underlying I-140. Multiple 485s with multiple I-140s is fine). Higher chances of rejection than just a missing employment letter.
- If your lawyer is a relatively reputable firm, then chances are that they have done this in the past and have not had any issues. So chances are they know what they are doing.
Anyone else with this firm ? Also I see that there are people who have already sent in their 485 applications. My 2 cents:
- Dont send in multiple 485s (with the same underlying I-140. Multiple 485s with multiple I-140s is fine). Higher chances of rejection than just a missing employment letter.
- If your lawyer is a relatively reputable firm, then chances are that they have done this in the past and have not had any issues. So chances are they know what they are doing.
eeezzz
02-15 03:08 PM
Exactly, And how many from South America? 30% of the population is going to be hispanic by 2050.
Perhaps your number is not based on legal immigration. It might reach this number if you add up the illegal ones, and that is why the gov. is building the walls to stop them enter at borders and try to find the illegal ones and send them out.
Perhaps your number is not based on legal immigration. It might reach this number if you add up the illegal ones, and that is why the gov. is building the walls to stop them enter at borders and try to find the illegal ones and send them out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment