GCSOON-Ihope
10-17 09:56 AM
Assuming I filed for I-485 before the retrogression mess.
Thanks!
A co-worker and I applied together at exactly the same time.
We got approvals for LC and I-140 within weeks of each other.
Now, our PD became current in September 2006, he got approved a few days ago and...I found out I am stuck in the name check shit!
FYI, his name is extremely common and mine is extremely rare (in my entire life, I have never met someone with the same name!), so go figure...:confused: :confused: :confused:
Thanks!
A co-worker and I applied together at exactly the same time.
We got approvals for LC and I-140 within weeks of each other.
Now, our PD became current in September 2006, he got approved a few days ago and...I found out I am stuck in the name check shit!
FYI, his name is extremely common and mine is extremely rare (in my entire life, I have never met someone with the same name!), so go figure...:confused: :confused: :confused:
wallpaper Download aybayin is almost
jjava100
08-27 04:51 PM
MurthyDotCom : Moving to the Faster Lane - Changing EB3 to EB2 (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_eb3to2.html)
EbImmigrationReference: EB2 Porting (http://ebimmigrationreference.blogspot.com/search/label/EB2%20Porting)
EbImmigrationReference: EB2 Porting (http://ebimmigrationreference.blogspot.com/search/label/EB2%20Porting)
mdy_tvr
08-17 04:49 AM
Guys,
The doc I went to for the medical exam gave me Chicken Pox and MMR Vaccine. But for Tetanus, as I took one in 1999 , the doc said since its valid for 10 years I don't need one. He went by my word and filled the vaccine supplemant form accordingly.
My doubt is I did not have any wrriten records to show that I took this vaccine in 1999.
Does USCIS requires the civil surgeon to provide the vaccination record document along with 693 & vaccination supplement form? or does it just go by what the civil surgeon mentions in the supplemental form?
Thanks
The doc I went to for the medical exam gave me Chicken Pox and MMR Vaccine. But for Tetanus, as I took one in 1999 , the doc said since its valid for 10 years I don't need one. He went by my word and filled the vaccine supplemant form accordingly.
My doubt is I did not have any wrriten records to show that I took this vaccine in 1999.
Does USCIS requires the civil surgeon to provide the vaccination record document along with 693 & vaccination supplement form? or does it just go by what the civil surgeon mentions in the supplemental form?
Thanks
2011 alibata tattoo tribal alibata
purgan
02-01 02:03 AM
Use EB2 because i read somewhere EB2 IND ould open up later in FY 2008, i..e May-July like last year.
more...
Vel
01-21 08:33 AM
Thanks for your reply and I understand that AC21 can be used for job in same or similar occupation.
But my questions is that what happen if my GC applied thru Emp A for "programmer analyst" with 60K and now I am planning to change my job with Emp B as "Sr. Program Manager" with 100K?
Since my Emp A (GC sponsor) agree to continue the GC process, why do i need to invoke AC21 with Emp B?
Looking forward to have your answer on this... thank you so much in advance...
Vel
But my questions is that what happen if my GC applied thru Emp A for "programmer analyst" with 60K and now I am planning to change my job with Emp B as "Sr. Program Manager" with 100K?
Since my Emp A (GC sponsor) agree to continue the GC process, why do i need to invoke AC21 with Emp B?
Looking forward to have your answer on this... thank you so much in advance...
Vel
amundres
01-13 03:54 AM
I live in northern california and has written letters to congressman, first lady but not response.
more...
franklin
06-20 10:36 AM
For 485, EAD and AP , Do we need get three quarter old fashion photo . I mean facing diagonal or facing straight to camera? I believe old one was looking diagonal to camera.
No - see the links i posted originally
No - see the links i posted originally
2010 alibata tattoo part I
Blog Feeds
01-09 02:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQox27MhbBj5eoKRA1B0yV3t-T5pYSDAq9vSiVNj75vyW011Wr1uOyVAaArW_1VmELyVonfgpOlYnaCzihgFB2i8Ujqf_spOw57W-nQaVkB9CR19ogqgaNXOYHStvPEwSBku7FmAyMq0o/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQox27MhbBj5eoKRA1B0yV3t-T5pYSDAq9vSiVNj75vyW011Wr1uOyVAaArW_1VmELyVonfgpOlYnaCzihgFB2i8Ujqf_spOw57W-nQaVkB9CR19ogqgaNXOYHStvPEwSBku7FmAyMq0o/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQox27MhbBj5eoKRA1B0yV3t-T5pYSDAq9vSiVNj75vyW011Wr1uOyVAaArW_1VmELyVonfgpOlYnaCzihgFB2i8Ujqf_spOw57W-nQaVkB9CR19ogqgaNXOYHStvPEwSBku7FmAyMq0o/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQox27MhbBj5eoKRA1B0yV3t-T5pYSDAq9vSiVNj75vyW011Wr1uOyVAaArW_1VmELyVonfgpOlYnaCzihgFB2i8Ujqf_spOw57W-nQaVkB9CR19ogqgaNXOYHStvPEwSBku7FmAyMq0o/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
more...
kurtz_wolfgang
08-23 09:02 AM
First of all Congratulations, ConchShell.
:):)
Did you get soft LUD on your 485 or 140? Since I received a soft lud on 485. NSC
:):)
Did you get soft LUD on your 485 or 140? Since I received a soft lud on 485. NSC
hair Baybayin Tattoo
godbless
05-31 07:46 PM
I'm surprised that with a November 2001 PD that you are getting an interview already, since EB-3 is still retrogressed--EB3 world is only at July 1 2001 for June 2006
The PD fot EB3 is April 07 2001 I think. Anyway.... there should not be a cause for concern. The reason you got an AOS interview is that USCIS is adjudicating cases pending Visa availability. If there had been a concern then there would have been another RFE on it. You should be happy that some progress has taken place.
Cheers!!!!!!
The PD fot EB3 is April 07 2001 I think. Anyway.... there should not be a cause for concern. The reason you got an AOS interview is that USCIS is adjudicating cases pending Visa availability. If there had been a concern then there would have been another RFE on it. You should be happy that some progress has taken place.
Cheers!!!!!!
more...
FredG
July 18th, 2004, 07:34 PM
First I want to learn to take more pictures. I never seem to have the urge, opportunity and camera all in the same place at the same time.
I also would like to learn what to take pictures of. I am obviously limited by the capabilities of my Cybershot and circular polarizer. What kinds of photographs, subjects and conditions should I concentrate on so that I can take pictures I will be pleased with?
I live in Houston.
BrandonYou have to provide the motivation. The opportunity is everywhere you look.
You will do best taking pictures of things you like. You will put more of yourself into it, and it will show. Whatever equipment you have is sufficient to start climbing that learning curve. When you outgrow it, you will know it and upgrade.
Houston? Sorry, I didn't read your profile earlier. We just happen to call the same town home. Let's hook up some time. Send me a PM.
I also would like to learn what to take pictures of. I am obviously limited by the capabilities of my Cybershot and circular polarizer. What kinds of photographs, subjects and conditions should I concentrate on so that I can take pictures I will be pleased with?
I live in Houston.
BrandonYou have to provide the motivation. The opportunity is everywhere you look.
You will do best taking pictures of things you like. You will put more of yourself into it, and it will show. Whatever equipment you have is sufficient to start climbing that learning curve. When you outgrow it, you will know it and upgrade.
Houston? Sorry, I didn't read your profile earlier. We just happen to call the same town home. Let's hook up some time. Send me a PM.