Sakthisagar
10-21 10:37 AM
Like Ron hira mentioned, try to take a look from politics and 'election' perspective.whether he wins or loses, always tries to be in the news. just ignore.
earlier we have this kind of nonsense from Sen.Sessions and earlier to that Sen.Sensenbrener . These kind of people come and go, but how much they can achieve? Do they really know the implications of what they talk? my sincere guess is 'nothing', other than just want to be in the news
We do not have problems if everybody is ignoring this guy grassley but that is not the Truth. USCIS takes it seriously and issue a memo upon his letter which makes our Legal immigrants life miserable! What do you say for that.
Example: The infamous Employee employer relationship memo of Jan 18th came out from this B*** heads letter to Mr.Mayorkas.
earlier we have this kind of nonsense from Sen.Sessions and earlier to that Sen.Sensenbrener . These kind of people come and go, but how much they can achieve? Do they really know the implications of what they talk? my sincere guess is 'nothing', other than just want to be in the news
We do not have problems if everybody is ignoring this guy grassley but that is not the Truth. USCIS takes it seriously and issue a memo upon his letter which makes our Legal immigrants life miserable! What do you say for that.
Example: The infamous Employee employer relationship memo of Jan 18th came out from this B*** heads letter to Mr.Mayorkas.
wallpaper Speed Undercover wallpaper
return_to_india
01-19 05:34 PM
Is $500 what your wife pays from her pocket (and employer pays the rest) or is this the actual cost of buying insurance?
In the former case, expect the actual cost under COBRA to be significantly higher.
I think you mixed part of reply with "chaks7" info.
I pay $500 . Don't know how much the employer pays.
In the former case, expect the actual cost under COBRA to be significantly higher.
I think you mixed part of reply with "chaks7" info.
I pay $500 . Don't know how much the employer pays.
anilsal
12-20 12:15 PM
Take a copy of your I140 approval atleast. It is just a sheet of paper when you go for stamping. Sometimes your lawyer can give you a copy of I140 filed papers. This will have information on your company's financials etc.
2011 wallpaper need for speed.
sac-r-ten
11-10 02:43 PM
i renewed mine in Apr 2006 in Washington DC and they gave it for 10 yrs. My stamped H1B was expiring in Oct 2007.
more...
murali77
06-16 12:30 AM
Dear Friends
I have a big problem , my name is correct on passport, birthcertificate , H1 but my social security card has my name swapped. I never bothered to change all these years but I hear name check so I am worried.
Will my 1-485 case get stuck because of this
is it a good idea to change the name on SSN now.
Any suggestions.
Thanks
Murali
I have a big problem , my name is correct on passport, birthcertificate , H1 but my social security card has my name swapped. I never bothered to change all these years but I hear name check so I am worried.
Will my 1-485 case get stuck because of this
is it a good idea to change the name on SSN now.
Any suggestions.
Thanks
Murali
skumar9
04-13 11:07 AM
My date is also not Current(Eb3 2006 ) got RFE today requesting The TB test. Think they opened the case and working. :)
more...
anurakt
01-03 11:13 AM
I pledge $120 every month as soon as it is available......
2010 NFS PRO STREET WALLPAPER
dtekkedil
07-02 11:34 PM
I can do it...
We need to spread the word!
I would love to send this as the message - Suggested by one of our own - "prashant"
Message: ALLTHE BEST FOR FUTURE EB VISA ESTIMATES
Truly,
A victim of revised visa bulletin
But we need something that sounds a little more genuine. A bit more mature?
Any suggestions?
We need to spread the word!
I would love to send this as the message - Suggested by one of our own - "prashant"
Message: ALLTHE BEST FOR FUTURE EB VISA ESTIMATES
Truly,
A victim of revised visa bulletin
But we need something that sounds a little more genuine. A bit more mature?
Any suggestions?
more...
capriol
07-06 11:54 AM
Dear Friends:
I am not sure why nobody is answering to my questions on their AP travel experiences. Please reply, I am almost freaking out not know what sorts of obstacles I might face at Delhi and Amsterdam without a H1B stamped visa. My queries are as below:
I will be returning from India soon by KLM (via the Delhi-Amsterdam-U.S route), with an AP, 485 pending receipt, an H1B status BUT with an expired H1B visa on your passport? Given that I have these documents, I have decided not to get my H1B visa re-stamped in India. But now, I am getting a little panicked as the time is nearing for the following reasons (and these related questions). Will you please answer them for me:
(1) If I have the AP documents, the 485 pending receipt, and my HIB paperwork with me (but not the H1B visa stamped in my passport), will I be able to re-enter the U.S? Will there be any problems at the port of entry?
(2) At Delhi and at Amsterdam, will the immigraiton folks give me trouble if they see an expired HIB visa on my passport? Can they refuse to let me board the plane? Have any of you traveling via Delhi and Amstredam experienced any problems from the immigration folks?
Please share your experiences. Thanks a lot.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I am not sure why nobody is answering to my questions on their AP travel experiences. Please reply, I am almost freaking out not know what sorts of obstacles I might face at Delhi and Amsterdam without a H1B stamped visa. My queries are as below:
I will be returning from India soon by KLM (via the Delhi-Amsterdam-U.S route), with an AP, 485 pending receipt, an H1B status BUT with an expired H1B visa on your passport? Given that I have these documents, I have decided not to get my H1B visa re-stamped in India. But now, I am getting a little panicked as the time is nearing for the following reasons (and these related questions). Will you please answer them for me:
(1) If I have the AP documents, the 485 pending receipt, and my HIB paperwork with me (but not the H1B visa stamped in my passport), will I be able to re-enter the U.S? Will there be any problems at the port of entry?
(2) At Delhi and at Amsterdam, will the immigraiton folks give me trouble if they see an expired HIB visa on my passport? Can they refuse to let me board the plane? Have any of you traveling via Delhi and Amstredam experienced any problems from the immigration folks?
Please share your experiences. Thanks a lot.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
hair NfS Hot Babe - Fantasy,
140jibjab
01-08 04:36 PM
When you go to get social security # with I797 the Buddas/Buddis at the counter wil ask for the Passport and Stamping..... and just the 797 will not suffice....
more...
lalithkx
06-06 05:52 PM
Job should be same or similar responsibilities and salary
hot thumbs NFS wallpapers NFS
rbms
03-06 05:26 PM
Two responses
more...
house Cool+nfs+wallpapers
milind70
07-26 03:12 PM
My company filed my green card and have applied for 485 for me and my wife on July 19 with July visa bulletin reinstated. We have also applied for AP and EAD for my wife. We both are on H1 at this time. My wife' job is going to end by month end.
Does she need to file change of status to H4 or it is fine to stay in US with AOS pending status.
My 140 is still pending
Actually speaking your wife does not require any visa after applying for AOS but your 140 is not approved so to be on the safer side please change the status to H4. I would suggest consult your attorney
Does she need to file change of status to H4 or it is fine to stay in US with AOS pending status.
My 140 is still pending
Actually speaking your wife does not require any visa after applying for AOS but your 140 is not approved so to be on the safer side please change the status to H4. I would suggest consult your attorney
tattoo Need for Speed Wallpapers
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
pictures Pro Street NFS Wallpaper NFS
willigetagc
08-17 02:32 PM
just remember to carefully preserve all payslips, email communications, and all other docs from this period. If and when you file for GC, you MAY need these docs.
But, otherwise, your case is straightforward. As long as you send the H1 transfer to CIS before you are terminated/resign from B, you status will continue uninterrupted... So you are ok.
But, otherwise, your case is straightforward. As long as you send the H1 transfer to CIS before you are terminated/resign from B, you status will continue uninterrupted... So you are ok.
dresses 2010 Need For Speed – Pros
rick_rajvanshi
04-22 12:19 PM
There is a high possibility that more RFEs are being issued as there is a lot of background processing going on. Th economy is down and there might be instructions from top to review cases closely.
A denial can happen when RFEs are not responded in time.
From what I have been seeing on forum - all RFEs that people got for i 485 are not something difficult to answer.
If you look at RFEs for h1bs - some are very complicated and these days Attorneys are charging around 3K for responding to RFE with no guarantee
I think it is quite normal that we are getting barrage of RFEs from USCIS. This perhaps is not due to recession or economy at all. It is also not unusual in my opinion. You are simply forgetting the fact that during July-Aug 2007 , so many of us filed 485s together. So its quite natural that when these cases are being processed, we are getting RFEs to re-check for authentications and cases are being pre-adjudicated and approvals are pending for lack of visa numbers. Nothing unusual. En mass filing is resulting in En mass RFEs.
A denial can happen when RFEs are not responded in time.
From what I have been seeing on forum - all RFEs that people got for i 485 are not something difficult to answer.
If you look at RFEs for h1bs - some are very complicated and these days Attorneys are charging around 3K for responding to RFE with no guarantee
I think it is quite normal that we are getting barrage of RFEs from USCIS. This perhaps is not due to recession or economy at all. It is also not unusual in my opinion. You are simply forgetting the fact that during July-Aug 2007 , so many of us filed 485s together. So its quite natural that when these cases are being processed, we are getting RFEs to re-check for authentications and cases are being pre-adjudicated and approvals are pending for lack of visa numbers. Nothing unusual. En mass filing is resulting in En mass RFEs.
more...
makeup Nfs Carbon Wallpaper.
chanduv23
02-12 01:36 PM
- lazy folks, are NOT just lazy to contribute $$
- many simply just dont know what mess that are into yet
im sure time will teach lessons to those, but no use - it may be too late. they might think about IV - when they have packed their bags and while at the airport, taring their I-94's one last US departure. yeah going for good is what i mean. see you somewhere in india. may be a good subject to talk when we all retire.
I second this. Most people have no clue what kind of mess they got into. Everyone is used to the comforts of life in the US and want to make it their home by any means, but no one understands that life is not easy.
- many simply just dont know what mess that are into yet
im sure time will teach lessons to those, but no use - it may be too late. they might think about IV - when they have packed their bags and while at the airport, taring their I-94's one last US departure. yeah going for good is what i mean. see you somewhere in india. may be a good subject to talk when we all retire.
I second this. Most people have no clue what kind of mess they got into. Everyone is used to the comforts of life in the US and want to make it their home by any means, but no one understands that life is not easy.
girlfriend NFS Undercover Wallpaper for
sk2006
07-04 11:48 AM
Answer to original question: YES any legal resident can buy Guns in CA. There is a test to be passed at authorised Gun dealer and there is a 10 days waiting period before you can be issued a gun.
However What about learning to use the weapons? Are there places where one can learn it?
No point buying a gun when you don't know how to use.
However What about learning to use the weapons? Are there places where one can learn it?
No point buying a gun when you don't know how to use.
hairstyles nfs wallpapers. Nfs Carbon Wallpaper. Nfs Carbon Wallpaper. calcvita
shaifu
03-28 10:37 PM
Hi Friends
My employee filed for H1 extension for me in oct 2007.Earlier i had been granted a 3 yr extension in 2005.Today USCIS reported that they needed additional information from me to approve my case and had mailed me a letter in this regard.Does anyone have any similar experience.I have my EAD and AP and my PD is Sept 05 in EB2.What information if any could USCIS be needing.Any suggestions are highly welcome and appreciated
My employee filed for H1 extension for me in oct 2007.Earlier i had been granted a 3 yr extension in 2005.Today USCIS reported that they needed additional information from me to approve my case and had mailed me a letter in this regard.Does anyone have any similar experience.I have my EAD and AP and my PD is Sept 05 in EB2.What information if any could USCIS be needing.Any suggestions are highly welcome and appreciated
mnq1979
06-26 09:39 AM
I jst got an update on my and my wife I-485; i am not sure what it is about as i have not received the RFE yet.....but i think they are asking for our BC as we did not provide them when we applied for I-485;
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
somegchuh
09-22 04:39 PM
Is it possible to include "allow filing 485" if labor has been pending for 2+ years?
Its not just people who have labor approved and are waiting for PD to be current. In fact there are a lot of ppl who are waiting for labor for 4+ years.
I think its perfectly doable. If its ok to ask for ability to file 485 without PD being current, I think its ok to ask for ability to file 485 while labor is pending.
But I guess we have gone thru this a dozen times and it doesn't appear that the plight of ppl stuck in PBEC is on IV agenda.
vivache:
Top on IV's goals is 'ability to file for I-485' even when visa number is not available. As you perhaps know this will enable securing an EAD. Hope this answers your question.
Its not just people who have labor approved and are waiting for PD to be current. In fact there are a lot of ppl who are waiting for labor for 4+ years.
I think its perfectly doable. If its ok to ask for ability to file 485 without PD being current, I think its ok to ask for ability to file 485 while labor is pending.
But I guess we have gone thru this a dozen times and it doesn't appear that the plight of ppl stuck in PBEC is on IV agenda.
vivache:
Top on IV's goals is 'ability to file for I-485' even when visa number is not available. As you perhaps know this will enable securing an EAD. Hope this answers your question.
No comments:
Post a Comment