viva
01-31 11:13 PM
he is extremely knowledgable person in terms of immigration, he has 5000+ posts on immigration forums and has helped countless people with immigration issues. His name seems to be Nadeem and is a Canadian immigrant and is a CPA and his EB3 petition is in retrogression.
In recent times he started stereotyping immigrants and make every immigrant feel that they are breaking laws in some way or the other and became unpopular.
He was not in support of IV and was under a strong feeling that a bunch of immigrants are wasting precious time and money. But now he seems to change his stance and has stepped into IV and has become a member. He is very helpful in terms of his skills and willingness to share his knowledge and help people.
He does audit to a lot of h1b dependent employers and has direct influence and can strongly recommend them to contribute for this cause. Most of his analysis about patterns of visa distribution comee out as expected but in recent times there were instances where his analysis went wrong too.
Overall he is definitely of great help if he wishes to dedicate some time of his to this cause and help in all ways possible.
if he was a cfo or is a cfo, as he claims on previous posts, why is he filinf under eb-3? why can't he file under eb-2 or eb-1? isn't eb-1 for multinational executives?
most cfos would be toiling inside their companies, rather than spending time on forums. may be, he is just getting to act out his dream of being a cfo on the forums. may be, he thinks he can get away with claiming to be anything. after all, who is going to check? i could say i am the ceo of citibank or intel or microsoft. who is going to check on that? i can post a link to the sec website where my name will be shown as steve balmer.
people can claim to be a lot of things in this world..just don't believe everything they say without proof....
if i said that i am a talking elephant, would you believe me? probably, no. so, why would u believe that united nations is what he says he is?
In recent times he started stereotyping immigrants and make every immigrant feel that they are breaking laws in some way or the other and became unpopular.
He was not in support of IV and was under a strong feeling that a bunch of immigrants are wasting precious time and money. But now he seems to change his stance and has stepped into IV and has become a member. He is very helpful in terms of his skills and willingness to share his knowledge and help people.
He does audit to a lot of h1b dependent employers and has direct influence and can strongly recommend them to contribute for this cause. Most of his analysis about patterns of visa distribution comee out as expected but in recent times there were instances where his analysis went wrong too.
Overall he is definitely of great help if he wishes to dedicate some time of his to this cause and help in all ways possible.
if he was a cfo or is a cfo, as he claims on previous posts, why is he filinf under eb-3? why can't he file under eb-2 or eb-1? isn't eb-1 for multinational executives?
most cfos would be toiling inside their companies, rather than spending time on forums. may be, he is just getting to act out his dream of being a cfo on the forums. may be, he thinks he can get away with claiming to be anything. after all, who is going to check? i could say i am the ceo of citibank or intel or microsoft. who is going to check on that? i can post a link to the sec website where my name will be shown as steve balmer.
people can claim to be a lot of things in this world..just don't believe everything they say without proof....
if i said that i am a talking elephant, would you believe me? probably, no. so, why would u believe that united nations is what he says he is?
wallpaper graffiti art wallpapers. i
fromnaija
08-18 04:41 PM
If she is here on H4 and while she was here her H1B got approved then there is no problem. As H1B is not VISA and its intent to hire. Infact if she wanted to to Join work on H1B, she will need to apply status change application for H4 to H1B.
No, not correct. Since she got a new I-94 her status changed to H1 w.e.f October 1, 2008.
However, because she did not work she is currently out of status. She will have to change her status back to H4 either by going out of country and re-entering with H4 visa or filing I-539.
No, not correct. Since she got a new I-94 her status changed to H1 w.e.f October 1, 2008.
However, because she did not work she is currently out of status. She will have to change her status back to H4 either by going out of country and re-entering with H4 visa or filing I-539.
paskal
12-19 03:12 PM
Dear MN members,
Mark you calenders for the teleconference on Tuesday the 26th December at 9pm CST. Details forthcoming. Agenda is open at this time, suggestions are welcome as we finalise. Members from WI/IA/IL/Dakotas are welcome to join in, we can have an upper midwest caucus.
Please indicate your availibility by posting here,
Thanks!
remember the fund raising and add a member camoaign, please join if you have not done so already.
Mark you calenders for the teleconference on Tuesday the 26th December at 9pm CST. Details forthcoming. Agenda is open at this time, suggestions are welcome as we finalise. Members from WI/IA/IL/Dakotas are welcome to join in, we can have an upper midwest caucus.
Please indicate your availibility by posting here,
Thanks!
remember the fund raising and add a member camoaign, please join if you have not done so already.
2011 Funny graffiti artwork
malibuguy007
09-16 01:38 PM
House Judiciary Committee MembersBelow or go to the thread mentioned above
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
more...
BMS1
08-21 12:05 PM
Thanks
GCnew
03-17 12:05 PM
I have a priority date of March 2004 (EB2 India) and I am still waiting for my Green Card. I think majority of the 2004 filers are in the same boat except for a lucky few who were able to get the green card after the July fiasco.
So don't buildup your hopes too high. I firmly beleive that very soon there will be a repeat of what we saw last year in July and the green cards will be distributed once again out of order.
So if you are one of those luck ones, you might get it.
Good Luck!!
So don't buildup your hopes too high. I firmly beleive that very soon there will be a repeat of what we saw last year in July and the green cards will be distributed once again out of order.
So if you are one of those luck ones, you might get it.
Good Luck!!
more...
newuser
08-17 11:27 AM
ashkam
How many years do they renew the license based on I-485 receipt at Malvern DMV?
Thanks
I think the expiry date is based on EAD, not based on I-485 receipt notice.
How many years do they renew the license based on I-485 receipt at Malvern DMV?
Thanks
I think the expiry date is based on EAD, not based on I-485 receipt notice.
2010 Munny Doll Graffiti Artwork by
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
more...
h1-b forever
10-28 09:53 AM
My friend's dependent spouse got CPO approval on 9/10 and the card itself in earlier this month. However, the primary applicant has received no approval notice. Anyone with similar case?
hair grafitti artwork crimes
Jeff Wheeler
11-27 04:36 AM
Hmm... I didn't know about AIR issues you mentioned.. ;( On PC it works great, and people at Adobe (as I can see on videos) use Mac OS as their primary OS.
AIR on Linux is in beta, and it�s no question why. It�s a second-class citizen.
btw considering Mono... We had an ASP.NET app that had to be ported to Linux.. We did it with Mono, but... there were huge problems with memory leaks.. So colleague had to rewrite it completely in PHP.. So, my (bad) experience tells me not to use .NET on Linux... Perhaps they fixed it though? Ugh, somehow I don't believe that Microsoft cares for any other OS but its own.. ?
ASP.NET may be different from normal .NET apps, but there are many first-class C# apps that run in Mono�s runtime environment that can be ported from *nix to even OS X.
I can�t speak for your experiences, but if you rewrote it in PHP, it probably wasn�t intended to a normal GUI app in the first place. PHP is an odd replacement, if so.
AIR on Linux is in beta, and it�s no question why. It�s a second-class citizen.
btw considering Mono... We had an ASP.NET app that had to be ported to Linux.. We did it with Mono, but... there were huge problems with memory leaks.. So colleague had to rewrite it completely in PHP.. So, my (bad) experience tells me not to use .NET on Linux... Perhaps they fixed it though? Ugh, somehow I don't believe that Microsoft cares for any other OS but its own.. ?
ASP.NET may be different from normal .NET apps, but there are many first-class C# apps that run in Mono�s runtime environment that can be ported from *nix to even OS X.
I can�t speak for your experiences, but if you rewrote it in PHP, it probably wasn�t intended to a normal GUI app in the first place. PHP is an odd replacement, if so.
more...
nrk
02-02 01:04 PM
Congrats.... :)
Finally after nine years in US my Green Card is approved.
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
Finally after nine years in US my Green Card is approved.
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
hot Vibrant 3D Arrow Graffiti Art
SAPGURU
07-13 09:04 PM
I was searching on internet and this is what i found on Murthy.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) provided instructions on how to notify them regarding an earlier priority date (PD) when filing the I-140 and I-485 for an individual. It is possible to transfer a PD from one employment-based green card case to another, filed for the same individual, if the first case has reached the point where the 1-140 petition has been approved. Similarly, it is possible, in certain limited situations, to transfer a priority date from an approved I-130 petition to a later family-based filing. On occasion, however, it is difficult to make the service centers aware that the beneficiary has an earlier priority date.
The NSC, on June 14, 2005, provided instructions for a person filing a petition and requesting an earlier priority date based upon a previous case. A brightly-colored, flagged sheet of paper should be included to indicate that there is an earlier priority date. A copy of the prior I-797 Approval Notice of the I-140 petition should be inserted directly behind the brightly-colored sheet of paper. Though the NSC did not indicate where this should go in the filing, it is generally best to put such requests on the top of the filing or directly behind the cover sheet, to maximize the chance that it will be seen and acknowledged. This will avoid a rejection of the file, based on the priority date not being current, and a needless delay in processing the new filing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that mean i can file I-485 with my previously approved I-140? I have also drop an email to my HR regarding the same. We do not have direct access to Attorney as every thing has to be directed by HR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) provided instructions on how to notify them regarding an earlier priority date (PD) when filing the I-140 and I-485 for an individual. It is possible to transfer a PD from one employment-based green card case to another, filed for the same individual, if the first case has reached the point where the 1-140 petition has been approved. Similarly, it is possible, in certain limited situations, to transfer a priority date from an approved I-130 petition to a later family-based filing. On occasion, however, it is difficult to make the service centers aware that the beneficiary has an earlier priority date.
The NSC, on June 14, 2005, provided instructions for a person filing a petition and requesting an earlier priority date based upon a previous case. A brightly-colored, flagged sheet of paper should be included to indicate that there is an earlier priority date. A copy of the prior I-797 Approval Notice of the I-140 petition should be inserted directly behind the brightly-colored sheet of paper. Though the NSC did not indicate where this should go in the filing, it is generally best to put such requests on the top of the filing or directly behind the cover sheet, to maximize the chance that it will be seen and acknowledged. This will avoid a rejection of the file, based on the priority date not being current, and a needless delay in processing the new filing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that mean i can file I-485 with my previously approved I-140? I have also drop an email to my HR regarding the same. We do not have direct access to Attorney as every thing has to be directed by HR.
more...
house graffiti, artwork, 3d,
Steve Mitchell
November 8th, 2003, 10:50 PM
To bad this image got corrupted somehow in the server move....a repost of the full image would sure be great.
i don't normally go for tricked-up stuff, but this one kind of hooked me. I did the "Ansel Adams" conversion to B&W which gave me a contrasty and "antique' look. Then I merged it with the original at about 45%.
This gave the shot a very surreal look.
Don
i don't normally go for tricked-up stuff, but this one kind of hooked me. I did the "Ansel Adams" conversion to B&W which gave me a contrasty and "antique' look. Then I merged it with the original at about 45%.
This gave the shot a very surreal look.
Don
tattoo Brighton Graffiti Art
aj1234567
10-22 08:11 PM
I got FP Appointmnet letter on 10/10/07 for the the date 10/30.
After i got this fp appointmnet letter i had changed my address on 10/10/07 with usics, i got card production mail from uscis on 10/11/07,they updated my new address and i did not got any mail from them saying that they send the EAD card,many of my frineds said that they recived mail from usics saying that EAD had sent my mail,But i did not
Is adress change impact on EAD time.
After i got this fp appointmnet letter i had changed my address on 10/10/07 with usics, i got card production mail from uscis on 10/11/07,they updated my new address and i did not got any mail from them saying that they send the EAD card,many of my frineds said that they recived mail from usics saying that EAD had sent my mail,But i did not
Is adress change impact on EAD time.
more...
pictures miami-graffiti-art
venky08
08-06 03:05 AM
capturing visa numbers would put an end to our misery. and increasing the employment based visa will pave way for future immigrants. handling a few thousand more cases is not a big deal for USCIS(there may be performance issues but not like difficulty of hiring more people to do the stuff!). don't get panicky about the number. it should be lot less than you would think.
dresses Graffiti
sdeshpan
06-24 06:18 PM
Remember you are bonded labor if you are on H1B or Work Permit. They will use you & your illegal brothers every election year and this is one of those years ..... everything is chatter until something heppens.
Don't get your hopes high.... just get your head down and work for them.
and what's the point of posting this twice...10 minutes apart? Those who will, will take your point! :)
Don't get your hopes high.... just get your head down and work for them.
and what's the point of posting this twice...10 minutes apart? Those who will, will take your point! :)
more...
makeup Air Gallery - Graffiti Art
winguru
09-16 10:51 PM
Done
girlfriend Graffiti Artwork Amsterdam
kish006
12-27 04:01 PM
It took about 4 weeks. Do you have H1-B extension? If so, I would suggest to use that instead of waiting for AP. The AP has new date instead of old one. Good Luck in getting the AP sooner.
IF your EAD and AP got approved with incorrect Photo. What actions ur lawyer is taking for her I-485 application. IF you 485 approved her card will come with different photo. so you lawyer suggested to you and what actions ur taking to prevent.
Let me know as I am also in same boat.
My lawyer is stupid guy he wont respond to me. he will only respond to my employer.
IF your EAD and AP got approved with incorrect Photo. What actions ur lawyer is taking for her I-485 application. IF you 485 approved her card will come with different photo. so you lawyer suggested to you and what actions ur taking to prevent.
Let me know as I am also in same boat.
My lawyer is stupid guy he wont respond to me. he will only respond to my employer.
hairstyles Graffiti Art Gallery
anandrajesh
05-04 01:59 PM
Hi Madhuri,
Do you have any more information regarding this.
I am in the same boat .
My LC got approved through perm in my 6th year
and I140 applied and pending .
6th year expires in Sept06.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
You can get your H1 extended based on Approved Labor / Pending Labor for 365 days. You get H1 extensions in 1 yr increments. If your 140 is approved as well then you get your H1 in 3 yr increments.
I got my labor/140 done and my 6th Yr H1 is expiring Aug 31 and i shld be eligible for 3 yr extension due to Visa Number Unavailability.
Do you have any more information regarding this.
I am in the same boat .
My LC got approved through perm in my 6th year
and I140 applied and pending .
6th year expires in Sept06.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
You can get your H1 extended based on Approved Labor / Pending Labor for 365 days. You get H1 extensions in 1 yr increments. If your 140 is approved as well then you get your H1 in 3 yr increments.
I got my labor/140 done and my 6th Yr H1 is expiring Aug 31 and i shld be eligible for 3 yr extension due to Visa Number Unavailability.
morpheus
04-06 12:03 PM
Yes all of us can apply under 218 also but then I am not sure if I will want to wait another 6 years before applying for a green card. Also there is no set category under which these people will be able to apply for their green cards. So at that time, another bill will be needed to carve out a category for them and then they will have to be processed. So it could easily take another 4-5 years before you might get your GC. Also god only knows what kind of restrictions might be placed on the immigrants under this section and once you transfer under that category your existing GC processing will have to be canceled.
If you are in a stable job with limited promotions or raises, I agree the traditional GC route is better if you can make it through. For my career, I would rather have the added flexibility for six years. I do agree it could be very slow though and it is a small extra risk. In my case, I have the option of returning to another visa category if the GC processing didn't work out in the end.
If you are in a stable job with limited promotions or raises, I agree the traditional GC route is better if you can make it through. For my career, I would rather have the added flexibility for six years. I do agree it could be very slow though and it is a small extra risk. In my case, I have the option of returning to another visa category if the GC processing didn't work out in the end.
lynliu
02-25 10:39 PM
I live in South Florida
No comments:
Post a Comment