hebbar77
03-15 02:14 PM
First thing is when u have higher salary , u got nothing to worry.
Next job tittle/description have to be similar in words not only in nature(becos USCIS officers are not tichnical folks, they just match words). Also it has to be in similar job code. This code is in the ETA* form filed during the labor phase by ur current employer.
But you can do AC21 with EAD or H1. H1 is safer than EAD.
Next job tittle/description have to be similar in words not only in nature(becos USCIS officers are not tichnical folks, they just match words). Also it has to be in similar job code. This code is in the ETA* form filed during the labor phase by ur current employer.
But you can do AC21 with EAD or H1. H1 is safer than EAD.
wallpaper mortal kombat 9 mileena.
Bpositive
01-03 01:23 PM
I am trying to get a handle on recent 221g processing times..it seems like a routine exercise and we are submitting the requested information..however, if it is delayed for too long, we may use advance parole..
immilaw
12-08 09:03 AM
[QUOTE=gc03]Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) 3rd-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: gregg.senate.gov
Washington Office:
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2904
Phone: (202) 224-3324
Fax: (202) 224-4952
Main District Office:
125 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 225-7115
*************************
Senator John E. Sununu (R-NH) 1st-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: sununu.senate.gov
E-mail: mailbox@sununu.senate.gov
Washington Office:
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2903
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Fax: (202) 228-4131
Main District Office:
1589 Elm St., Ste. 3
Manchester, NH 03101
Phone: (603) 647-7500
Fax: (603) 647-9352
*************************
Representative Charles Bass (R-NH 2nd) 6th-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: www.house.gov/bass
E-mail: cbass@mail.house.gov
Washington Office:
2421 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2902
Phone: (202) 225-5206
Fax: (202) 225-2946
Main District Office:
142 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 226-0249
Fax: (603) 226-0476
=========================
Just called all 3 senators and asked to Support the High-Skilled Immigrant Interim Relief Act of 2006
Very EASY.[/QUOTE
Lets not start a seperate thread. We already have one http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2483 for these messages. Please post your messages there.
Contact Information
Web Site: gregg.senate.gov
Washington Office:
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2904
Phone: (202) 224-3324
Fax: (202) 224-4952
Main District Office:
125 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 225-7115
*************************
Senator John E. Sununu (R-NH) 1st-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: sununu.senate.gov
E-mail: mailbox@sununu.senate.gov
Washington Office:
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2903
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Fax: (202) 228-4131
Main District Office:
1589 Elm St., Ste. 3
Manchester, NH 03101
Phone: (603) 647-7500
Fax: (603) 647-9352
*************************
Representative Charles Bass (R-NH 2nd) 6th-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: www.house.gov/bass
E-mail: cbass@mail.house.gov
Washington Office:
2421 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2902
Phone: (202) 225-5206
Fax: (202) 225-2946
Main District Office:
142 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 226-0249
Fax: (603) 226-0476
=========================
Just called all 3 senators and asked to Support the High-Skilled Immigrant Interim Relief Act of 2006
Very EASY.[/QUOTE
Lets not start a seperate thread. We already have one http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2483 for these messages. Please post your messages there.
2011 mortal kombat mileena cosplay.
gcnirvana
04-27 06:39 PM
In my opinion, looks like another placeholder bill just before CIR.
more...
perm2gc
10-27 07:09 PM
I have applied for my H1B extension in july and got the approval in Aug...:D
baba84
04-26 03:28 PM
what does your lawyer say about the matter?
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
2010 mortal kombat mileena cosplay.
hebbar77
09-04 03:06 PM
how about including people who will be dying to the prayer list? Please dont include common people. Please bring your checkbooks for prayer meeting. After prayers you will get option to donate to charity.
more...
zCool
12-04 02:42 AM
You were supposed to get 92$ / hr for a LC you applied for in 2001??
exactly what is it that you do/did?
exactly what is it that you do/did?
hair kombat mileena cosplay hd.
transpass
03-16 03:57 AM
hi,
Thanks for your reply. But how is it possible to get a word to word match in job description in an offer letter? When you get a job the new company words for the offer letter. As your job will be similar you will have common words like "develop", "analyze" "test" etc. But how the whole thing matches word to word. Is it possible to request the new employer to phrase the offer letter as per you LC description? Can they entertain such request?
I would appreciate if anyone who invoked Ac21 can help
If you have the same job with similar job duties, one thing you can do is as follows...
Pull out your approved labor and see the job description. Use similar description on the new job. The description need not match word to word, but more or less similar. Also, consult your lawyer regarding this and seek his/her advice so that your AC21 sails smoothly...
Thanks for your reply. But how is it possible to get a word to word match in job description in an offer letter? When you get a job the new company words for the offer letter. As your job will be similar you will have common words like "develop", "analyze" "test" etc. But how the whole thing matches word to word. Is it possible to request the new employer to phrase the offer letter as per you LC description? Can they entertain such request?
I would appreciate if anyone who invoked Ac21 can help
If you have the same job with similar job duties, one thing you can do is as follows...
Pull out your approved labor and see the job description. Use similar description on the new job. The description need not match word to word, but more or less similar. Also, consult your lawyer regarding this and seek his/her advice so that your AC21 sails smoothly...
more...
TexasGC
07-21 03:21 PM
Why does USCIS want TB test done? Many countries like India have BCG vaccination administered at childhood thus preventing TB. However, such people will show a false positive if administered a skin test for TB.
This is causing many Indians to go for a chest xray. I feel this is a ridiculous requirement.
This is causing many Indians to go for a chest xray. I feel this is a ridiculous requirement.
hot mortal kombat 9 mileena
shukla77
11-20 08:02 PM
Please send emails to CBS 60 Minutes and other media sources. Send them personalized emails explaining backlog issues and efforts from IV. Considering passage of SKIL Bill in lame duck session a remote possibility, this would be a step in right direction. Also it would bring IV in media focus.
****So far ~10 people have sent emails to CBS..*****
****5990 to go..*****
Good Luck
Shukla77:)
****So far ~10 people have sent emails to CBS..*****
****5990 to go..*****
Good Luck
Shukla77:)
more...
house mortal kombat mileena cosplay
Administrator2
09-07 01:25 PM
IV Core,
I have chosen to participate in the Law makers meeting and received the Talking points ( no confirmed appointments yet)
I know IV has tailored it's agenda after much thought and deliberation. However, it's my personal opinion that some points may need to be tailored based on the party affiliation of the law maker we are speaking to, as one size doesn't fit all.
Pro-labor demands may find resonance with a Congressman of labor background, but may not sit well the pro-employer Republican. ( point 5 of IV agenda). Also Point 7 may not be liked by a Democrat as it places haves before the havenots.
My question is can we tailor it based on whom we are speaking to or keep it standard if some points are disliked by the lawmakers?
I haven't mentioned the actual points as I'm not sure if they can be discussed here. Is it okay to discuss it here? Or is it better discussed offline?
Could we just keep the focus of this thread to encourage more members to send the information required to setup the meetings on Sept 17th? Your comments may be important and you may have a valid concern, but mixing all the information and individual meeting view-points is going to create a chaos.
Walking_dude,
If you have any question, could you please simply send an email? Volunteers working on this effort are working day in and day out and they are not going to come to this thread to read your post and to answer your question. Your post is relevant, but somewhere else. It is not helping what we are trying to do on this thread. You apparently have the documents so that means you know which email to write your comments/concerns.
Hope you understand what we are trying to say.
I have chosen to participate in the Law makers meeting and received the Talking points ( no confirmed appointments yet)
I know IV has tailored it's agenda after much thought and deliberation. However, it's my personal opinion that some points may need to be tailored based on the party affiliation of the law maker we are speaking to, as one size doesn't fit all.
Pro-labor demands may find resonance with a Congressman of labor background, but may not sit well the pro-employer Republican. ( point 5 of IV agenda). Also Point 7 may not be liked by a Democrat as it places haves before the havenots.
My question is can we tailor it based on whom we are speaking to or keep it standard if some points are disliked by the lawmakers?
I haven't mentioned the actual points as I'm not sure if they can be discussed here. Is it okay to discuss it here? Or is it better discussed offline?
Could we just keep the focus of this thread to encourage more members to send the information required to setup the meetings on Sept 17th? Your comments may be important and you may have a valid concern, but mixing all the information and individual meeting view-points is going to create a chaos.
Walking_dude,
If you have any question, could you please simply send an email? Volunteers working on this effort are working day in and day out and they are not going to come to this thread to read your post and to answer your question. Your post is relevant, but somewhere else. It is not helping what we are trying to do on this thread. You apparently have the documents so that means you know which email to write your comments/concerns.
Hope you understand what we are trying to say.
tattoo 2011 mortal kombat mileena
japs19
01-22 11:18 AM
Red my other posts where I wrote my experience as I was asked the same question. But here's the answers to your questions in nut shell.
If you have a valid H-1 visa then just stick to it and don't us AP unless you have to.
If CBP officer don't ask, you don't tell, but if s/he does, be HONEST and tell them that you don't. It will really stir the pot but politely tell them that GC on Employment Base is for future employment and that has been my understanding and in good faith my intentions are to go and work for that employer.
They can really harass you for hours like they did me for 6 hrs and then was told to go downtown office. BTW just on a positive note, my AP has been stamped and I am good to go.
There is no law that defines that you have to be working for the original petitioner while your application is being processed but just ethically it's a much better situation if you are employed by the same employer. CBP offficer's argument was that "what's the guarantee that you will go and work for that employer after approval of your GC? or what is the guarantee that they will have that position open for all these years as it may take a very long time?" I told them with a chuckle on my face that if it hadn't taken USCIS 3-4 years to process that application, that wouldn't be the question but they are still processing my file...I mean how many people you gave an offer letter who you want to start after 4 years as a CBP officer?" He gave me a rude smile and walked away to secondary check section.
Anyways....long story short, be honest, have patience and don't show desperation to enter the country.
Good luck...
Looks like Immigration Officers at Port of Entry are asking the AP entry individuals if they are still working from the GC sponsoring company.
I am planning to travel on AP and is not working anymore for the GC sponsoring company.
1. What would be the reaction of the Immigration Officer if he finds out that I am NOT working from the sponsoring company?
2. What documents should I carry to ensure the I will be allowed to re-enter to US on AP with my current non-GC sponsoring company offer letter, pay-stubs etc?
PLease advise
If you have a valid H-1 visa then just stick to it and don't us AP unless you have to.
If CBP officer don't ask, you don't tell, but if s/he does, be HONEST and tell them that you don't. It will really stir the pot but politely tell them that GC on Employment Base is for future employment and that has been my understanding and in good faith my intentions are to go and work for that employer.
They can really harass you for hours like they did me for 6 hrs and then was told to go downtown office. BTW just on a positive note, my AP has been stamped and I am good to go.
There is no law that defines that you have to be working for the original petitioner while your application is being processed but just ethically it's a much better situation if you are employed by the same employer. CBP offficer's argument was that "what's the guarantee that you will go and work for that employer after approval of your GC? or what is the guarantee that they will have that position open for all these years as it may take a very long time?" I told them with a chuckle on my face that if it hadn't taken USCIS 3-4 years to process that application, that wouldn't be the question but they are still processing my file...I mean how many people you gave an offer letter who you want to start after 4 years as a CBP officer?" He gave me a rude smile and walked away to secondary check section.
Anyways....long story short, be honest, have patience and don't show desperation to enter the country.
Good luck...
Looks like Immigration Officers at Port of Entry are asking the AP entry individuals if they are still working from the GC sponsoring company.
I am planning to travel on AP and is not working anymore for the GC sponsoring company.
1. What would be the reaction of the Immigration Officer if he finds out that I am NOT working from the sponsoring company?
2. What documents should I carry to ensure the I will be allowed to re-enter to US on AP with my current non-GC sponsoring company offer letter, pay-stubs etc?
PLease advise
more...
pictures mortal kombat mileena cosplay.
brij523
02-17 10:05 AM
Putting dollar amount to the signature is something like hierarchy system. People contributed more are on higher rank than others. I am not saying you should not put how much you have donated. But good will be to invite people to join IV. People are our strength. The signature should read
"IV IS VOLUNTEER ORGNIZATION, HELP YOURSELF TO HELP IV. SO DON'T ASK WHAT IV HAS DONE FOR YOU BUT ASK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO SUPPORT YOURSELF FIRST AND THEN IV.
MEMBERS CAN EITHER RAISE MEMBERSHIP, CONTRIBUTE 5 MINUTES EVERYDAY TO CALL SENATOR/CONGRESS MEMBER OR CONTRIBUTE.
MY CONTRIBUTION SO FAR IS XXXYYYZZZ"
And this should be the standard signature on everyone post. This way it looks like everyone is in the game.
"IV IS VOLUNTEER ORGNIZATION, HELP YOURSELF TO HELP IV. SO DON'T ASK WHAT IV HAS DONE FOR YOU BUT ASK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO SUPPORT YOURSELF FIRST AND THEN IV.
MEMBERS CAN EITHER RAISE MEMBERSHIP, CONTRIBUTE 5 MINUTES EVERYDAY TO CALL SENATOR/CONGRESS MEMBER OR CONTRIBUTE.
MY CONTRIBUTION SO FAR IS XXXYYYZZZ"
And this should be the standard signature on everyone post. This way it looks like everyone is in the game.
dresses Kitana (back) - Pan Fleitas
chris
02-08 11:05 PM
Did you contacted congressman or opened any SR's ?
I'm also in the same boat. Cases after me are getting approved.:)
I'm also in the same boat. Cases after me are getting approved.:)
more...
makeup hairstyles mortal kombat mileena cosplay. mortal kombat mileena cosplay hd.
chanduv23
04-21 10:10 AM
We moved from NYC to Houston back in September 2009. If you want to talk, please send me a private message.
Where r u moving from?
Where r u moving from?
girlfriend This Mortal Kombat Cosplay
mbartosik
11-09 05:27 PM
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bapio&btnG=Search+News
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_docs_win_legal_battle_in_UK/articleshow/2530784.cms
Good for them!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_docs_win_legal_battle_in_UK/articleshow/2530784.cms
Good for them!
hairstyles mortal kombat mileena cosplay
plreddy
08-20 12:51 PM
My 485 was approved on 8/11/2008 , where as wife's case is still pending.
PLREDDY
PLREDDY
LostInGCProcess
08-25 12:31 PM
Best thing to do in this case is, simply use your AP. No H1b stamping is needed. You can still remain on an H1B even if you use the AP for travelling.
As per my lawyer, the H1B has 2 aspects to it. One is the fact that it maintains status, the second is the actual stamped visa which allows entry/re-entry into the USA. You dont HAVE to have the stamped visa, if you have alternate means of re-entry.
I work for Company A, applied i-485 and both got EAD & AP.She is the dependent.
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
As per my lawyer, the H1B has 2 aspects to it. One is the fact that it maintains status, the second is the actual stamped visa which allows entry/re-entry into the USA. You dont HAVE to have the stamped visa, if you have alternate means of re-entry.
I work for Company A, applied i-485 and both got EAD & AP.She is the dependent.
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
tinamatthew
07-17 04:04 PM
DOS and USCIS are slow. But it would be really helpful if the IV code team can provide some update on our site. I believe over 2.5 hours have passed since the last update regarding some update in 1 hour. I guess we can't do anything if it takes more time but an update always helps! Thank you.
HERE IS THE UPDATE
UPDATE as of 3:18 PM EST 7/17/2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS will be rescinding its July 2 update and the initial July Visa Bulletin will take effect for 31 days � i.e., all employment-based green card categories (except for the �Other Workers� category) will be �current� and CIS will accept applications through August 17.
DHS will issue a press release to this effect later today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by logiclife : Today at 03:02 PM.
HERE IS THE UPDATE
UPDATE as of 3:18 PM EST 7/17/2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS will be rescinding its July 2 update and the initial July Visa Bulletin will take effect for 31 days � i.e., all employment-based green card categories (except for the �Other Workers� category) will be �current� and CIS will accept applications through August 17.
DHS will issue a press release to this effect later today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by logiclife : Today at 03:02 PM.
No comments:
Post a Comment