sixburgh
06-28 04:09 PM
Why did they allow me (my lawyer) to renew H1 status then?
Lawyer just received the h1 approval, you know?
And I too received my wife's H4.
Lawyer just received the h1 approval, you know?
And I too received my wife's H4.
wallpaper tattoos of quotes on ribs. tattoos on ribs for men. rib
ski_dude12
07-21 03:22 PM
Guys:
I am applying for my 485 and I was contemplating using the NEW fees vs OLD Fees.
OLD Fees:
I485- $325
Biometric - $70
I765 - $180
I131 -$170
TOTAL - $745
NEW Fees, which includes Biometric, EAD, and AP - $1010.00 when applying all togther with I485.
Check New Fees. (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf)
Now my question - Is it TRUE that in the NEW Fees, it allows for an indefinite FREE Renewal of EAD and AP until Green card is received. If this statement is true, then I would prefer using the NEW Fees, since it pays off within 1 year.
If anybody knows this answer, please attach link or direct to the USCIS page.
Thanks
New fee is 1010 (I-485 + FP) + $305 (AP) + $340 (EAD) = $1655
I am applying for my 485 and I was contemplating using the NEW fees vs OLD Fees.
OLD Fees:
I485- $325
Biometric - $70
I765 - $180
I131 -$170
TOTAL - $745
NEW Fees, which includes Biometric, EAD, and AP - $1010.00 when applying all togther with I485.
Check New Fees. (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf)
Now my question - Is it TRUE that in the NEW Fees, it allows for an indefinite FREE Renewal of EAD and AP until Green card is received. If this statement is true, then I would prefer using the NEW Fees, since it pays off within 1 year.
If anybody knows this answer, please attach link or direct to the USCIS page.
Thanks
New fee is 1010 (I-485 + FP) + $305 (AP) + $340 (EAD) = $1655
mach1343
01-26 11:18 AM
Minneapolis has the best education for children. Weather wise we have to compromise when it comes to children.
2011 latin tattoo quotes and
deecha
06-17 01:20 PM
So if i created an app and sold it, wouldn't i be working for myself and deriving financial compensation?
He could have developed the app outside the united states. He could have written the app in his spare time (He is not being paid to do it, maybe just a hobby). When he sells the app., it is not a salary. It is more like a dividend or rent (An H1B/F1/etc. can legally own property and derive rent .. it is not employment income). Furthermore, he can set up a LLC or an INC and sell the app through that but he should not have worked for that company while developing that app.
Lots of ways to get around it. Most laws are subject to interpretation and they're not absolute. If laws were absolute, we'd all be in the grip of tyranny and be slaves. There are only a few natural laws that are absolute.
As one person said on one of the threads (I think EB2 vs EB3), there is a tendency for people to achieve something and then set the bar just below them to exclude other people from competing with them either through laws or deprivation of resources (History is replete with such examples .. look at the kind of laws and regulations people are trying to pass). We must guard against such behavior/attitude and allow everyone a fair chance to succeed in life.
He could have developed the app outside the united states. He could have written the app in his spare time (He is not being paid to do it, maybe just a hobby). When he sells the app., it is not a salary. It is more like a dividend or rent (An H1B/F1/etc. can legally own property and derive rent .. it is not employment income). Furthermore, he can set up a LLC or an INC and sell the app through that but he should not have worked for that company while developing that app.
Lots of ways to get around it. Most laws are subject to interpretation and they're not absolute. If laws were absolute, we'd all be in the grip of tyranny and be slaves. There are only a few natural laws that are absolute.
As one person said on one of the threads (I think EB2 vs EB3), there is a tendency for people to achieve something and then set the bar just below them to exclude other people from competing with them either through laws or deprivation of resources (History is replete with such examples .. look at the kind of laws and regulations people are trying to pass). We must guard against such behavior/attitude and allow everyone a fair chance to succeed in life.
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
chanduv23
05-27 11:50 AM
I would like to share my I485 experience.
1.Brief History and Denial reason.
Did I485 interview at local office in Jan 2009.
Got Denial notice stating that I485 filed when dates are not current.
This is not true. Filed I 485 in 2007 July Fiasco.
Immigration office recived application in AUg 2007, well before deadline Aug 17'2007.
Got I485 receipt in October.
it was denied due to clear error.
2. Filed Service MTR with out filing Fee ( as this is service error)
Did not get any communication for 3 months.
In between took info pass couple of times and it did not help.
Wrote letter seeking help of senator explaining situation.
Immediately got reply that case was reopened and I797 Notice of action was mailed to me stating that case was reopend and finger prints expired.
Did finger printing in May.
Since dates are not current, I am not expecting any approval.
AT least I am happy that. case was reopened.
I heard that some 485 was denied ( 2007 July Fiasco) due to same error. I posted this experience as it would be helpfull for any other denials cases.
.
Good thing. Please let me know if you are interested in helping IV in a new campaign addressing issues similar to this? Send me a private message with your contact info and I will contact you.
1.Brief History and Denial reason.
Did I485 interview at local office in Jan 2009.
Got Denial notice stating that I485 filed when dates are not current.
This is not true. Filed I 485 in 2007 July Fiasco.
Immigration office recived application in AUg 2007, well before deadline Aug 17'2007.
Got I485 receipt in October.
it was denied due to clear error.
2. Filed Service MTR with out filing Fee ( as this is service error)
Did not get any communication for 3 months.
In between took info pass couple of times and it did not help.
Wrote letter seeking help of senator explaining situation.
Immediately got reply that case was reopened and I797 Notice of action was mailed to me stating that case was reopend and finger prints expired.
Did finger printing in May.
Since dates are not current, I am not expecting any approval.
AT least I am happy that. case was reopened.
I heard that some 485 was denied ( 2007 July Fiasco) due to same error. I posted this experience as it would be helpfull for any other denials cases.
.
Good thing. Please let me know if you are interested in helping IV in a new campaign addressing issues similar to this? Send me a private message with your contact info and I will contact you.
more...
GCBatman
04-13 10:03 AM
I have recently switched the job using AC21. I have to move my 401K from my old previous company but here is the issue: in my new company I will not be eligible for the 401 till I complete 6 months with the new company.
If thinking of moving it to IRA account, please let me know what is the procedure involved?
I will really appreciate if some can suggest me what are my other options.
Thanks,
If thinking of moving it to IRA account, please let me know what is the procedure involved?
I will really appreciate if some can suggest me what are my other options.
Thanks,
2010 quote tattoos on rib cage.
lostinbeta
10-04 12:20 AM
Good Luck=)
more...
Winner
01-22 07:24 PM
I used Clinton Bush Haiti Fund**|**Home (http://www.clintonbushhaitifund.org) to make my small contribution, it took less than 2 minutes, no account creation required, this site accepts paypal too.
https://re.clintonbushhaitifund.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=3884
https://re.clintonbushhaitifund.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=3884
hair Here is her quote:
raj1998
05-19 10:09 AM
In the similar boat.. I received sms/email on 13th that 485 has been approved but have not received any welcome/approval letter till date. I am on H1b. It has expired and I don't have Advance Parole also. I need to travel urgently in first week of June 2011. I was thinking of getting my H1b stamped during the trip, but since that's not possible what are my options???
I called my lawyers office but really didn't get any sound reply... seems like that lost interest once I told them I am not filing EAD/AP and GC is approved
I called my lawyers office but really didn't get any sound reply... seems like that lost interest once I told them I am not filing EAD/AP and GC is approved
more...
bobzibub
04-28 10:04 AM
...Currently the US is the only country in the world, which puts the priorities of illegals above those of Citizens and legal people within its borders....
...
This statement is utter nonsense.
...
This statement is utter nonsense.
hot tattoo quotes on ribs. sayings
tabletpc
05-28 12:02 PM
Thanks Ramba, Thats greatly appreciated.
In b/w as anyone heard of USCICS picking up 485 from later date and processing it or am i trying to be too pessimistic...???
Just want to make sure I analyze all pros/cons before making a decision.
Thanks ...
In b/w as anyone heard of USCICS picking up 485 from later date and processing it or am i trying to be too pessimistic...???
Just want to make sure I analyze all pros/cons before making a decision.
Thanks ...
more...
house quote tattoo on ribs. quote
reno_john
06-18 12:34 PM
U need to Say the last entry because H1B visa will tell you the stamping city. SO u can go ahead and tell them the port of entry u came to USA after H1B stamp, since u will be sending a copy of ur passport and they will see ur Canada visa and also the H1 visa with Canada as the date of issuance and that will be in the USCIS database, because they verify before they issue the H1 visa.
tattoo quote tattoos on ribs for
KanME
12-26 12:15 PM
Thanks for reply... that clears things a little. :)
more...
pictures tattoo quotes for girls on
bmoni
08-21 01:35 PM
Thank you all.
Thanks for bringing up the I-94 validity based on the validity of PP. I will definitely get PP renewed while I'm in India with Takkal scheme.
@bushman06: Did the immigration officer gave you I-94 validity till PP expiry date or Visa expiry date.
Again thanks for all your thoughtful responses. I really appreciate it.
Thanks for bringing up the I-94 validity based on the validity of PP. I will definitely get PP renewed while I'm in India with Takkal scheme.
@bushman06: Did the immigration officer gave you I-94 validity till PP expiry date or Visa expiry date.
Again thanks for all your thoughtful responses. I really appreciate it.
dresses quotes on ribs tattoos. quote
syedajmal
03-31 04:14 PM
Speeding is a misdemeanor in some states and can cause a false alarm. Just recollect to see if you can recollect anything where you ran into the law even something minor??
more...
makeup girl tattoo quotes on ribs. rib tattoo ideas. rib tattoo ideas. Chundles
krishnam70
08-27 06:04 PM
Krishnam70,
Thanks for the details. I still have some questions and would like to clarify with you.. Was wondering if you could provide me u r contact number or email id.
Thanks
send me a
message will respond to your questions
Thanks for the details. I still have some questions and would like to clarify with you.. Was wondering if you could provide me u r contact number or email id.
Thanks
send me a
message will respond to your questions
girlfriend pictures quote tattoo on ribs.
harsh
01-12 02:04 PM
Any body else from Alabama? Please sign up here if you are from alabama. Lets start our state chapter activities. I am willing to take the lead to start the activities. So all you alabama residents please sign up.
hairstyles rib tattoo. Rib Cage Tattoos
franklin
06-14 08:04 PM
I was told that as long as your priority date is current, you can file for AOS.
As soon as your application gets to the service center, and assuming your PD is current, it makes no difference what it ACTUALLY is. At this point, it goies to "whatever system they want to use" and has no relation to PD, but more to the RD of application
As soon as your application gets to the service center, and assuming your PD is current, it makes no difference what it ACTUALLY is. At this point, it goies to "whatever system they want to use" and has no relation to PD, but more to the RD of application
trueguy
08-10 02:10 PM
As I said earlier, i don't know how to add more options to this poll. If you know then tell me the options and I will add more options for EB3-I till date or may be for future dates if you like that.
rajutata
08-25 09:23 AM
You can apply for visitor visa and visit canada. if you PR is approved before you need to go to Canada, You do not need any visa
No comments:
Post a Comment