jsb
05-07 02:26 PM
I think if iam not wrong its not based of the priority date or anything else. Its just random
They are not random. The do have some logic.
At every center cases are filed in order they are received (at least that is what they claim). "Received" does not mean in order of RD you see on your receipt. It is when physically a center accepted your paper case, and decided to enter in the system. PD plays role only for casesfrom retrogressed countries (EB and FB, both). For majority of cases, it has no relevance. PD of cases is nowhere maintained in the system (at least until a case is looked at the first time, which is sometime referred to as "preadjudication"), except on your paper filing. When your file turns out to be next in que for adjudication, in order or receive date (as defined above), the IO has no idea about your PD. Physical file is processed and checked for docs (birth certificates, photos, etc. etc.), AND the PD. At this time you might see a LUD. If nothing further progresses (due to PD not being current) LUD remains a soft LUD, and your case is put aside. If by luck your file was seen when your PD was current, you get lucky and get a GC (and several hard LUDs). PD sequence and received date sequence have no relationship, that's why the whole process seems random.
They are not random. The do have some logic.
At every center cases are filed in order they are received (at least that is what they claim). "Received" does not mean in order of RD you see on your receipt. It is when physically a center accepted your paper case, and decided to enter in the system. PD plays role only for casesfrom retrogressed countries (EB and FB, both). For majority of cases, it has no relevance. PD of cases is nowhere maintained in the system (at least until a case is looked at the first time, which is sometime referred to as "preadjudication"), except on your paper filing. When your file turns out to be next in que for adjudication, in order or receive date (as defined above), the IO has no idea about your PD. Physical file is processed and checked for docs (birth certificates, photos, etc. etc.), AND the PD. At this time you might see a LUD. If nothing further progresses (due to PD not being current) LUD remains a soft LUD, and your case is put aside. If by luck your file was seen when your PD was current, you get lucky and get a GC (and several hard LUDs). PD sequence and received date sequence have no relationship, that's why the whole process seems random.
wallpaper El amor brujo - Brigitte
Humhongekamyab
01-29 10:23 AM
this rumour sounds like its straight out of timesofindia :p;)
:d
:d
abhishek101
04-13 03:34 PM
One of my friends neighbours Aunt who lives in Australia has a cousin in South Africa
This cousin's sister's uncles' kids' friend got his GC last month, his PD was 2007. He was in EB3.
I have heard quite a few cases like that,
like other day I was at Safeway and the counter lady told me that her friend's cousin's son just got the whole process completed in 2 months and that too in EB3.
I can only say it is just unbelivable that these things still happen in this world. USCIS is just full of bums, we should definitely do some campaign about it.
But then ignorance is bliss :D
This cousin's sister's uncles' kids' friend got his GC last month, his PD was 2007. He was in EB3.
I have heard quite a few cases like that,
like other day I was at Safeway and the counter lady told me that her friend's cousin's son just got the whole process completed in 2 months and that too in EB3.
I can only say it is just unbelivable that these things still happen in this world. USCIS is just full of bums, we should definitely do some campaign about it.
But then ignorance is bliss :D
2011 Ensayo de #39;El amor brujo#39; en
sujan_vatrapu
10-26 10:38 PM
to be 'fair' FOX is better in the sense we know what we are getting but if u look at NPR, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, they make us believe they are giving out a balanced view of the world but they all have a 'liberal' agenda, to understand the issues better you have to listen to both sides of the argument, by criticizing FOX over and over in this forum we are shutting down cone side of the argument, many commentators on FOX expressed their supporting of legal immigration,
more...
joydiptac
11-18 05:52 PM
Timeline is from Dec 16 2006(Previous H1B expired on this date) to July 18 2007. This is when my H1B extension was pending due to an RFE. USCIS received my 485 application on July 18.
Hi,
Sorry to hear about your case and specially since you haven't broken any law. Technically this should be fairly simple case if you have a receipt of filing the H1B. Every time you file for H1B you get a receipt sent to your employer & a copy for u from USCIS. Then that is what enables you to legally stay (overstay). If you can find that you should not have any problems. If you have copy of the RFE that came for this application even better. Assuming you have neither you should definitely be having the WAC number for the pending H1B application. If you can provide that USCIS can verify that what you are saying is true. I believe the reason why they must've flagged your case is the gap of more than 6 months.
Let's say you do not have any of the above. Call your previous employer and explain to them what soup you are in. They will help you regardless of how bad your relations where when u left the company. All HRs have to keep copy of the H1B, applications, receipts, RFEs & approval (by law). So you should be OK.
All the best,
JC
Hi,
Sorry to hear about your case and specially since you haven't broken any law. Technically this should be fairly simple case if you have a receipt of filing the H1B. Every time you file for H1B you get a receipt sent to your employer & a copy for u from USCIS. Then that is what enables you to legally stay (overstay). If you can find that you should not have any problems. If you have copy of the RFE that came for this application even better. Assuming you have neither you should definitely be having the WAC number for the pending H1B application. If you can provide that USCIS can verify that what you are saying is true. I believe the reason why they must've flagged your case is the gap of more than 6 months.
Let's say you do not have any of the above. Call your previous employer and explain to them what soup you are in. They will help you regardless of how bad your relations where when u left the company. All HRs have to keep copy of the H1B, applications, receipts, RFEs & approval (by law). So you should be OK.
All the best,
JC
purgan
01-22 11:35 AM
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5585.html
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
more...
aachoo
05-02 06:11 PM
Doesnt matter if the I-94 is only till the visa expiry. There is another I-94 at the bottom of the approved I-797 that ends on the extended 797 date.
-a
-a
2010 El amor brujo - Manuel de
nozerd
01-17 01:55 PM
Check website of consulate. I know Houston consulate webiste is
www.cgihouston.org
You will have to go to the one in your jurisdiction.
www.cgihouston.org
You will have to go to the one in your jurisdiction.
more...
guyfromsg
10-04 09:37 PM
17. The US consulates and CBP are Googling you!
Thanks for sharing the info. This part is really scary. I know potential employers are doing it. Can't believe CBP is doing it. You mean they will do it when you hand over the passport and I-94 at the airport and make a decision on that. WOW
Thanks for sharing the info. This part is really scary. I know potential employers are doing it. Can't believe CBP is doing it. You mean they will do it when you hand over the passport and I-94 at the airport and make a decision on that. WOW
hair melodrama of a man
optimystic
03-31 03:01 PM
I have a somewat similar situation, here goes:
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Hmm....I got married in Nov 2004 and my wife came in to US Dec 2004. and when filing 2004 taxes I didnt think about my wife being NR for tax purposes. I went thru a CPA and I believe she filed 1040 married filing jointly !!
Didnt have any questions or issues so far. Should I bother....file an amendment....or just ignore until in case IRS has an issue?
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Hmm....I got married in Nov 2004 and my wife came in to US Dec 2004. and when filing 2004 taxes I didnt think about my wife being NR for tax purposes. I went thru a CPA and I believe she filed 1040 married filing jointly !!
Didnt have any questions or issues so far. Should I bother....file an amendment....or just ignore until in case IRS has an issue?
more...
supers789
07-23 03:01 PM
got following from another iv thread..
btw, my fragomen attorney said, it will take 6 to 8 months clear the audit.
Thanks!
-------------------
<i>July 21, 2008
Fragomen and DOL Agree to Return to Normal Processing
For Newly Filed PERM Cases
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Labor (DOL) has agreed that all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen will be processed normally and will not be subject to special audit.
After several weeks of discussions, the Department of Labor (DOL) and Fragomen have reached an interim agreement that will allow all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen to move forward in the normal processing queue without automatic audits. We are still talking with DOL regarding pending applications that have already been thrown into the special audit.
While we continue to have a major disagreement with DOL on its efforts to impede attorney-client communications, we have agreed to comply with DOL's new guidance bulletin, which presents a new and legally questionable interpretation of the PERM regulations regarding attorney actions. Until this interpretation is modified or judicially declared invalid, all immigration attorneys must conduct their representation in accordance with it.
Working with others in the immigration bar and business community, we will continue to pursue broader relief from DOL's misreading of the regulations and we have reserved every legal and equitable right to assert what we believe to be the proper interpretation of those regulations. Not only is this an infringement on employers' First Amendment rights, it contradicts specific language in the Department's regulations stating that employers may consult with counsel at all times "throughout the labor certification process."
If you have any questions about this alert, please contact the Fragomen attorney with whom you usually work.
Copyright � 2008 by Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP</i>
btw, my fragomen attorney said, it will take 6 to 8 months clear the audit.
Thanks!
-------------------
<i>July 21, 2008
Fragomen and DOL Agree to Return to Normal Processing
For Newly Filed PERM Cases
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Labor (DOL) has agreed that all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen will be processed normally and will not be subject to special audit.
After several weeks of discussions, the Department of Labor (DOL) and Fragomen have reached an interim agreement that will allow all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen to move forward in the normal processing queue without automatic audits. We are still talking with DOL regarding pending applications that have already been thrown into the special audit.
While we continue to have a major disagreement with DOL on its efforts to impede attorney-client communications, we have agreed to comply with DOL's new guidance bulletin, which presents a new and legally questionable interpretation of the PERM regulations regarding attorney actions. Until this interpretation is modified or judicially declared invalid, all immigration attorneys must conduct their representation in accordance with it.
Working with others in the immigration bar and business community, we will continue to pursue broader relief from DOL's misreading of the regulations and we have reserved every legal and equitable right to assert what we believe to be the proper interpretation of those regulations. Not only is this an infringement on employers' First Amendment rights, it contradicts specific language in the Department's regulations stating that employers may consult with counsel at all times "throughout the labor certification process."
If you have any questions about this alert, please contact the Fragomen attorney with whom you usually work.
Copyright � 2008 by Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP</i>
hot el amor brujo.
EkAurAaya
03-19 09:46 PM
I think you need to talk to the CPA for tax and not lawyer....
This came from a real estate lawyer... usually they know what they are talking about. But you are right, wont be a bad idea to run this by a CPA
This came from a real estate lawyer... usually they know what they are talking about. But you are right, wont be a bad idea to run this by a CPA
more...
house El amor brujo
Leo07
06-18 04:52 PM
But, I'm not sure if EB row would care that much...since their dates are ALWAYS current?
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
tattoo El Amor Brujo [Love,
Green.Tech
07-25 05:37 PM
Yes that is right the job responsibilities can increase. For my case the labor was filed for engineer position but I am on a manager level now and title has changed. My responsibilities have increased means i have all resp advertised + more and lawyer said OK.
So, did you have to redo PERM for the manager's position or did your older PERM fly?
So, did you have to redo PERM for the manager's position or did your older PERM fly?
more...
pictures El amor brujo
forgerator
09-05 01:08 AM
I hope EB3 ROW date moves to Nov 2008, this way I can file for my I485 :D
dresses El Amor Brujo.
srinivas_o
01-08 12:37 PM
Thanks a lot to everybody whoever answered my questions.
more...
makeup El Amor Brujo carátula DVD
inskrish
08-01 12:04 AM
Love the analogy.
Thanks Coopheal for leaving the IV wiki effort.
Pappu,
Just wanted to clarify, is it 'Leaving' or 'Leading'?
Thanks Coopheal for leaving the IV wiki effort.
Pappu,
Just wanted to clarify, is it 'Leaving' or 'Leading'?
girlfriend el amor brujo, carlos saura
rameshvaid
05-26 11:50 AM
I showed my 485 Receipt notice as evidence and renewed my licence. You don't have to always produce EAD (then every 2 year you have to renew the licence).
If your 485 is pending for long, You can contact USCIS over phone and create service request. USCIS will send you a letter saying that your case is pending because of so and so reason. You can take that along with you, if the BMV is asking why your 485 is pending for long.
Which DMV did you go to? My wife and son's H4's are expiring on June 4th and have pending I 485 since July 2007. They are not renewing the DL's based on the pending receipt of I 485 which they claim to be too old and need a new one.. Tried contacting USCIS but could not get through.. Can you pls. let me know which DMV did you go? How old is your pending I 485 and did you have to get a letter from USCIS? If yes, then how did u reach them and if you have any phone number for them..
Pls. advise..
Best...
If your 485 is pending for long, You can contact USCIS over phone and create service request. USCIS will send you a letter saying that your case is pending because of so and so reason. You can take that along with you, if the BMV is asking why your 485 is pending for long.
Which DMV did you go to? My wife and son's H4's are expiring on June 4th and have pending I 485 since July 2007. They are not renewing the DL's based on the pending receipt of I 485 which they claim to be too old and need a new one.. Tried contacting USCIS but could not get through.. Can you pls. let me know which DMV did you go? How old is your pending I 485 and did you have to get a letter from USCIS? If yes, then how did u reach them and if you have any phone number for them..
Pls. advise..
Best...
hairstyles el amor brujo. called El Amor
gc_kaavaali
11-14 04:36 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^bump^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
who gave me red mark?
somebody gave red mark...what happened???
who gave me red mark?
somebody gave red mark...what happened???
gcpool
07-08 10:37 AM
Apart from informing others about them legally what can he do.
Post his name & nobody will hire him.
Post his name & nobody will hire him.
vshivaji
09-26 02:01 PM
Even i got the Section: UNKNOWN thing from NSC. My 140 approved on MAY 2007, But online case status is still showing case pending, Is it because of this?
No comments:
Post a Comment