mirage
03-06 01:44 PM
I'll urge people from especially from California and Texas send out the letters and call up their lawmakers...Despite the Anti-immigrant climate prevailing in the country, congresswoman Zoe Logfren was able to get her bill passed on wednesday....If we can proove to them that we are not asking new green card numbers and not ask for recapturing green card numbers, they'll certainly hear us, but we need to speak up...
wallpaper Atlantis, The Palm opened with
AK_GC
03-16 05:05 PM
...2 letters.
GCEB2
09-20 10:13 PM
can any one give some information on this
2011 The Palm Jumeirah and the
reddog
01-21 11:03 AM
Money.........
more...
dbevis
April 16th, 2004, 06:29 PM
Hmm, anyone know how to Photoshop some people into a bubble? :)
Whom did you have in mind? :)
A little deform tool work to approximate the curvature, then blend that and the original image together. PSP has a "geometric effects" tool called "spherize" that would take care of the first part.
Whom did you have in mind? :)
A little deform tool work to approximate the curvature, then blend that and the original image together. PSP has a "geometric effects" tool called "spherize" that would take care of the first part.
Queen Josephine
June 19th, 2005, 08:53 PM
It is out and installed. I loaded up the rainbow picture, did an adjustment layer, but don't seem to be making changes that really improve the shot. I'll try some more later, but I have to go, the sun is about to rise :)
If you get frustrated with it, drop a note. I actually did the rainbow pic this am before I left the house.... took screen shots while doing it and made a pdf file for you. I just haven't had time to get it up on my website yet though. Maybe tomorrow!
If you get frustrated with it, drop a note. I actually did the rainbow pic this am before I left the house.... took screen shots while doing it and made a pdf file for you. I just haven't had time to get it up on my website yet though. Maybe tomorrow!
more...
walking_dude
10-25 01:57 PM
Guys, I couldn't reply to you all earlier , here, as I was busy with my job and personal chores.
Let's settle for Yahoo now, as it has powerful features such as Polls and Database that aren't available in Google. Also the Google group created by me has gone into 'La-La land' ( google bugs!)
Here's our new Secure and Trusted Yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ivmi
Here's the latest
1) We are getting our group registered as Official on IV (details sent to IV)
2) News from IV on Legislative updates issues will be posted on the group this weekend (10/20 attendees, be sure to join by then)
3) Some 10/20 Attendees to the meet have been added directly to the group. Others have been sent invites ( Yahoo restricts direct add to 10 per day). Please join ASAP. Let me know if there are any issues [ PM/'Private Message' or E-mail me]. I'll help you get joined.
4) Others, please provide the following details while requesting to join the group.
A) FULL NAME
B) IV handle (N/A for non-members)
C) Telephone [ we'll call you. No request to join will be accepted without Telephone number]
D) City and Zip Code + 4
We will call you to verify and then your request will be accepted. We regret the inability to accomodate anonymous requesters, as we wish to keep our group Secure and Trusted for the purpose of dissemination of sensitive IV information. Your co-operation to make this happen is greatly appreciated.
Let's settle for Yahoo now, as it has powerful features such as Polls and Database that aren't available in Google. Also the Google group created by me has gone into 'La-La land' ( google bugs!)
Here's our new Secure and Trusted Yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ivmi
Here's the latest
1) We are getting our group registered as Official on IV (details sent to IV)
2) News from IV on Legislative updates issues will be posted on the group this weekend (10/20 attendees, be sure to join by then)
3) Some 10/20 Attendees to the meet have been added directly to the group. Others have been sent invites ( Yahoo restricts direct add to 10 per day). Please join ASAP. Let me know if there are any issues [ PM/'Private Message' or E-mail me]. I'll help you get joined.
4) Others, please provide the following details while requesting to join the group.
A) FULL NAME
B) IV handle (N/A for non-members)
C) Telephone [ we'll call you. No request to join will be accepted without Telephone number]
D) City and Zip Code + 4
We will call you to verify and then your request will be accepted. We regret the inability to accomodate anonymous requesters, as we wish to keep our group Secure and Trusted for the purpose of dissemination of sensitive IV information. Your co-operation to make this happen is greatly appreciated.
2010 Fantasy palace - or the most
walking_dude
11-06 10:20 AM
Members from MI, please join your state chapter.
Thank You.
Thank You.
more...
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
hair Atlantis, The Palm: A nice
Munna Bhai
12-14 08:20 AM
I have been looking to possible cause of getting RFE at I-140 stage and I came up with the following:
1.If your qualification doesn't match with the job description, like you have AMIE,Diploma,M.Sc 3 years courses but I-140 says Major required is Engineering or B.Tech(chemical) or B.Tech(mech) but working in Software.
2.Ability to pay, which means how many I-140 that company currently has and whether that is equally distributed for wages.
3.Ability to pay, which means have you submitted the required Tax document etc so that it shows company can pay future wages.
I would like to get more information so that others who are planning to apply for GC should take this into consideration.
Any inputs is appreciated.
Thanks,
-M
1.If your qualification doesn't match with the job description, like you have AMIE,Diploma,M.Sc 3 years courses but I-140 says Major required is Engineering or B.Tech(chemical) or B.Tech(mech) but working in Software.
2.Ability to pay, which means how many I-140 that company currently has and whether that is equally distributed for wages.
3.Ability to pay, which means have you submitted the required Tax document etc so that it shows company can pay future wages.
I would like to get more information so that others who are planning to apply for GC should take this into consideration.
Any inputs is appreciated.
Thanks,
-M
more...
som_yad
08-15 05:12 PM
Just for curiosity. Which service center your 140 was applied. and is it EB3 or EB2 ?
hot Athba in Atlantis
gnutin
06-10 12:43 PM
Hi Gurus,
I came to U.S in May 2006. The company for which currently I am working (Company A) filed my labor (EB2) in October 2009. The labor got approved in May 2010.
My Visa is expiring in March 2011.
Now the attorney has asked me for the documents to proceed with I140.Hopefully my I140 will be filed in couple weeks.
Now my question is that, I am planning to change my job (to employer B) in September 2010.
Please help with your valuable answers for the following questions:-
1. How long does it take to get the i140 approved?
(Regular/Premium)
It is typically taking 1 to 3 months with Regular, but there are cases stuck for much longer too. (Refer to .com for a general idea). With Premium it should be within 30-45 days.
2. What will happen to the PD if employer A withdraws or revokes my I140 approval after I join company B? Can I still carry over my PD?
You lose your PD if employer A revokes the I-140 approval. Note that this revocation is not common and is generally seen in fraud cases.
3. At this point of time how long will I get the new Visa extension when I do the H1B Transfer from employer B?
Premium processing would take less than 30 days. To be safe move after employer B receives the approval.
4. What are the documents I need from employer A if I have to carry forward my PD to the employer B's Green Card process?
You need a copy of the I-140 approval notice and a copy of your PERM labor filing. Any other documents would be a plus because they would help the employer B's attorneys to prepare similar applications.
5. Does the new job need to be the same title and job requirements as the old one?
For porting PD, the answer is no. In fact new job can be EB2 while the old one was EB3.
I came to U.S in May 2006. The company for which currently I am working (Company A) filed my labor (EB2) in October 2009. The labor got approved in May 2010.
My Visa is expiring in March 2011.
Now the attorney has asked me for the documents to proceed with I140.Hopefully my I140 will be filed in couple weeks.
Now my question is that, I am planning to change my job (to employer B) in September 2010.
Please help with your valuable answers for the following questions:-
1. How long does it take to get the i140 approved?
(Regular/Premium)
It is typically taking 1 to 3 months with Regular, but there are cases stuck for much longer too. (Refer to .com for a general idea). With Premium it should be within 30-45 days.
2. What will happen to the PD if employer A withdraws or revokes my I140 approval after I join company B? Can I still carry over my PD?
You lose your PD if employer A revokes the I-140 approval. Note that this revocation is not common and is generally seen in fraud cases.
3. At this point of time how long will I get the new Visa extension when I do the H1B Transfer from employer B?
Premium processing would take less than 30 days. To be safe move after employer B receives the approval.
4. What are the documents I need from employer A if I have to carry forward my PD to the employer B's Green Card process?
You need a copy of the I-140 approval notice and a copy of your PERM labor filing. Any other documents would be a plus because they would help the employer B's attorneys to prepare similar applications.
5. Does the new job need to be the same title and job requirements as the old one?
For porting PD, the answer is no. In fact new job can be EB2 while the old one was EB3.
more...
house Atlantis, The Palm is a 1539
bigboy007
09-29 09:12 AM
We have taken indian jewellary with us when we travelled to India. I dont think it is a problem and you dont have to declare it in customs. I think if you are carrying cold in the form on coins or bars, you will have to pay customs. I dont remember but it says in the customs form that personal jewellary need not be mentioned. I would check the india's customs website.
Customs duty for any jewelry if not wearing as in custom rules. but i have noticed duty for coins and jewelry being actively pursued.
Customs duty for any jewelry if not wearing as in custom rules. but i have noticed duty for coins and jewelry being actively pursued.
tattoo Palm Atlantis The Palm based
logiclife
06-25 06:36 PM
Hi all,
My attorney (a great guy by the way) filed my I485 without my employment verification letter. When I raised the question, he argued that the employment verification letter cannot be a ground for denial and that worst case scenario will be USCIS sending a RFE.
Is it true that it is not a ground for denial?
Is is possible to send it it separately to complete the file?
What would be your advice?
Thanks is advance.
The most recent USCIS memo says that if initial evidence is missing, then they can deny the petition without bothering to send the RFE. This is memo as of June 17th.
Employment verification letter is listed in the intial evidence on 485 form. So it is very risk to send 485 without that coz it could get denied without you ever seeing an RFE.
Ask your lawyer if he has read the USCIS memo on June 17th. If he hasnt, then send him/her this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
Thanks.
My attorney (a great guy by the way) filed my I485 without my employment verification letter. When I raised the question, he argued that the employment verification letter cannot be a ground for denial and that worst case scenario will be USCIS sending a RFE.
Is it true that it is not a ground for denial?
Is is possible to send it it separately to complete the file?
What would be your advice?
Thanks is advance.
The most recent USCIS memo says that if initial evidence is missing, then they can deny the petition without bothering to send the RFE. This is memo as of June 17th.
Employment verification letter is listed in the intial evidence on 485 form. So it is very risk to send 485 without that coz it could get denied without you ever seeing an RFE.
Ask your lawyer if he has read the USCIS memo on June 17th. If he hasnt, then send him/her this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
Thanks.
more...
pictures The Atlantis Palm Hotel and
puskeygadha
07-08 02:47 PM
is this becuase of arranged marriage? immigrants like us have to
go back home find girl quickly and get married..its just like
similar way we get screwed in the hopes of green card..
i believe arranged marriage can be hard but we can grow together
given time and patience
go back home find girl quickly and get married..its just like
similar way we get screwed in the hopes of green card..
i believe arranged marriage can be hard but we can grow together
given time and patience
dresses Dolphin Bay Shallow Water
gk_2000
10-20 10:13 PM
he is leading his dem candidate by 30 points in one poll
Hey bhagwan, is budde ko dharthi se tu utha le..
(Oh almighty, summon this old man away from us)
Hey bhagwan, is budde ko dharthi se tu utha le..
(Oh almighty, summon this old man away from us)
more...
makeup of Atlantis, The Palm
acsouza
03-19 01:15 AM
So I asked my company's HR and the following is the reply I obtained:
<company name omitted> participates in E-Verify, which is a government run program that verifies work eligibility with the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration. E-Verify requires that List A documents (your EAD card is a List A doc) must contain a photo ID which the receipt does not contain. This is required because when your information is entered into E-Verify, a picture of your EAD card appears, I then have to confirm the picture in their data base matches your physical card. Due to us participating in E-Verify we must comply with their regulations which trumps regular I-9 requirements and we will have to wait until your EAD card arrives.
So according to the company I will work for the receipt would be a valid doc for List C of the I-9, yet their E-Verify regulations require me to present a document from List A.
I am sad. Completely ran out of money. Glad I have friends willing to lend me money at this difficult time or I would starve.
<company name omitted> participates in E-Verify, which is a government run program that verifies work eligibility with the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration. E-Verify requires that List A documents (your EAD card is a List A doc) must contain a photo ID which the receipt does not contain. This is required because when your information is entered into E-Verify, a picture of your EAD card appears, I then have to confirm the picture in their data base matches your physical card. Due to us participating in E-Verify we must comply with their regulations which trumps regular I-9 requirements and we will have to wait until your EAD card arrives.
So according to the company I will work for the receipt would be a valid doc for List C of the I-9, yet their E-Verify regulations require me to present a document from List A.
I am sad. Completely ran out of money. Glad I have friends willing to lend me money at this difficult time or I would starve.
girlfriend Atlantis, The Palm: A nice
hmehta
09-12 07:20 PM
Yes, you can take "Leave without pay" - you will not be out of status. Even if you are not getting paid you still are on company payroll.
As someone suggested earlier, if a woman on H1-B is pregnant, she can surely take maternity leave without going out of status.
As someone suggested earlier, if a woman on H1-B is pregnant, she can surely take maternity leave without going out of status.
hairstyles Luxury furnished villa on Palm
lazycis
11-30 11:54 AM
It usually takes a long time for them to fix their own mistakes. So do not lose sleep over it. Write to the director of the service center. If that does not help, complain to CIS Ombudsman
rajivkane
05-21 09:52 AM
HI!
I have two I-140(both approved) & want to port earlier priority date of 10/21/2003(EB-3 Classification) to my other approved I-140(EB2 Class-priority date 11/14/2005). My EB-3 I-140 was not approved at the time of filling I-485 in July'2007. Both my lawyer & me have written couple of letters to USCIS to do this but still nothing is done. We received a reply to one of my letter asking us to file I-824 "requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date". Both I-140 are from the same employer & I am still with them. My questions are 1) do I need to file I-824 or this will be eventually done by USCIS by reminder letters? (2) Will filling I-824 will harm my case in anyway? (3) What "reason for request" to choose on I-824 when filling- as none of the existing ones fit my case( can I say "see attached" & mention ""requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date" on anither sheet of paper? (if any one has this experience please guide me) (4) how long does it take to get this done whether we file I-824 or otherwise?(5)Any good lawyer for this?
Some more :
Murhy.com has following:
"However, we at the Murthy Law Firm see cases in which either the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date was not approved until after the I-485 filing or the option was overlooked. In those situations, NSC suggests that the Application for Action on Approved Petition (Form I-824) can be used in order to obtain proof of the change of the priority date. Form I-824 is not required in order to make the request for retention or change of priority date, but it gives a mechanism to obtain a decision and proof that the request was granted"
Some of the questions based on above:
(1) Do I require to file I-824 based on this since my EB-3 I-140 was approveD after I filed my I-485 based on EB-2.
(2) If yes, can I file I-842 or my employer need to file since this is "application for action" on I-140 petititon?
(3)Why only NSC requires this? Is this law or someone's whim?
(4) I am already waiting for nearly six month's now- based on porting I am current past six months & we already have sent two letters from my lawyer & two from my side for this.
Please guide.
Regards,
Raj
I have two I-140(both approved) & want to port earlier priority date of 10/21/2003(EB-3 Classification) to my other approved I-140(EB2 Class-priority date 11/14/2005). My EB-3 I-140 was not approved at the time of filling I-485 in July'2007. Both my lawyer & me have written couple of letters to USCIS to do this but still nothing is done. We received a reply to one of my letter asking us to file I-824 "requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date". Both I-140 are from the same employer & I am still with them. My questions are 1) do I need to file I-824 or this will be eventually done by USCIS by reminder letters? (2) Will filling I-824 will harm my case in anyway? (3) What "reason for request" to choose on I-824 when filling- as none of the existing ones fit my case( can I say "see attached" & mention ""requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date" on anither sheet of paper? (if any one has this experience please guide me) (4) how long does it take to get this done whether we file I-824 or otherwise?(5)Any good lawyer for this?
Some more :
Murhy.com has following:
"However, we at the Murthy Law Firm see cases in which either the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date was not approved until after the I-485 filing or the option was overlooked. In those situations, NSC suggests that the Application for Action on Approved Petition (Form I-824) can be used in order to obtain proof of the change of the priority date. Form I-824 is not required in order to make the request for retention or change of priority date, but it gives a mechanism to obtain a decision and proof that the request was granted"
Some of the questions based on above:
(1) Do I require to file I-824 based on this since my EB-3 I-140 was approveD after I filed my I-485 based on EB-2.
(2) If yes, can I file I-842 or my employer need to file since this is "application for action" on I-140 petititon?
(3)Why only NSC requires this? Is this law or someone's whim?
(4) I am already waiting for nearly six month's now- based on porting I am current past six months & we already have sent two letters from my lawyer & two from my side for this.
Please guide.
Regards,
Raj
beautifulMind
11-03 08:30 PM
The CIR bill is definitely coming back. Obama has mentioned it few times that solving the current immigration problem is one of his highest priority. Now we will need to wait and see what changes they can add to the existent CIR bill to help legals. But I would think most of the bill should remain the same since they have wasted a lot of time and effort in coming up with it
No comments:
Post a Comment