chantu
07-16 03:12 PM
Admin :
This kind of question should be banned. You should have some self-respect and show the same towards your native country. If you know you can do it, whats the point of making it public. Go get it done. Are you asking IV to pay the sum on your behalf also ?
Unfortunately, this is the fact in our country. But the thing is he will get it by spending Rs.100 - Rs.200. Here, after spending $10,000 legally for GC..it is nowhere in sight.
This kind of question should be banned. You should have some self-respect and show the same towards your native country. If you know you can do it, whats the point of making it public. Go get it done. Are you asking IV to pay the sum on your behalf also ?
Unfortunately, this is the fact in our country. But the thing is he will get it by spending Rs.100 - Rs.200. Here, after spending $10,000 legally for GC..it is nowhere in sight.
wallpaper justin bieber photoshopped.
kmk2002
10-09 06:31 PM
is SOC_CODE 999.151-051 (from case data at FLCCenterdata.com) is same as 15-1051.00 mentioned above?
amsgc
06-15 11:40 PM
I just read the instructions on initial evidence on the I-485. Nowhere does it ask you for passport details - only for page with nonimmigrant visa, if obtained in the last one year.
Why are people asking questions about passport validity? What am I missing here - please enlighten.
Thank you.
Ams
Passport should be valid for more than 6 months for applying I 485.
If somebody can answer that would begreat
Why are people asking questions about passport validity? What am I missing here - please enlighten.
Thank you.
Ams
Passport should be valid for more than 6 months for applying I 485.
If somebody can answer that would begreat
2011 justin bieber photoshopped.
h_shaik
11-14 04:12 PM
Your employer gave you a red mark.
somebody gave red mark...what happened???
somebody gave red mark...what happened???
more...
Leo07
06-18 04:52 PM
But, I'm not sure if EB row would care that much...since their dates are ALWAYS current?
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
immi2006
05-04 10:00 AM
Based on Perm Trackers in immigration.com, the rate of approvals for EB2 based on the excel sheets seems like this :
2005 - EB2 approval less than 30 % of the filing, 39 % is pending for a looooog time, rest are rejects
2006 - EB2 so far - 41 % of the filing is approved,
2005 EB3 Approval rate 44 %
BEC to Conversion to PERM Processs - Rejection rate 78 %
2005 - EB2 approval less than 30 % of the filing, 39 % is pending for a looooog time, rest are rejects
2006 - EB2 so far - 41 % of the filing is approved,
2005 EB3 Approval rate 44 %
BEC to Conversion to PERM Processs - Rejection rate 78 %
more...
optimist578
03-18 01:05 PM
Most of the pro-immigrant bills donot seem to have cosponsors, whereas, the anti-immigrant/security-enhancing/american-jobs-protecting bills have a lot of support.
A small list of bills I found somewhat relevant to our issues...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.R.133 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (5)
H.R.938 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes related to family-sponsored immigrants and to reduce the number of such immigrants.
Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] (introduced 2/8/2007) Cosponsors (17)
H.R.19 : To require employers to conduct employment eligibility verification.
Sponsor: Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.132 : To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to depart the United States after securing permission to do so, or who unlawfully returns to the United States after voluntarily departing.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (2)
H.R.98 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to enforce restrictions on employment in the United States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved Social Security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.842 : To provide for enhanced Federal, State, and local assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to authorize appropriations to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] (introduced 2/6/2007) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.131 : To impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a deportable alien who fails to depart or fails to attend a removal proceeding.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (1)
A small list of bills I found somewhat relevant to our issues...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.R.133 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (5)
H.R.938 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes related to family-sponsored immigrants and to reduce the number of such immigrants.
Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] (introduced 2/8/2007) Cosponsors (17)
H.R.19 : To require employers to conduct employment eligibility verification.
Sponsor: Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.132 : To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to depart the United States after securing permission to do so, or who unlawfully returns to the United States after voluntarily departing.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (2)
H.R.98 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to enforce restrictions on employment in the United States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved Social Security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.842 : To provide for enhanced Federal, State, and local assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to authorize appropriations to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] (introduced 2/6/2007) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.131 : To impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a deportable alien who fails to depart or fails to attend a removal proceeding.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (1)
2010 justin bieber face 2011.
prince_waiting
08-31 11:45 AM
Dont worry about it guys........
Every American who owns an IPOD and can surf the web thinks that he is hi-tech....
Americans still expect six figues salaries after high school educaiton....
My boss has been trying to hire a couple of EEs since the past couple of months but is not successful.....Ultimately he had to request me to find Indians graduating in the coming fall semester from the local university....
Also the poll shoule be structured as "Do you think American school system is not producing enough skilled workers with knowledge in STEM fields?"
'High tech jobs' and 'qualified workers' are all distractive terms for the larger malice in place: Americans taking for granted that jobs will be lined for them when they step out of college.
As a matter of fact Mr. Lou Dobbs is doing a big disservice to the American people by lying and not encounraging them to face the harsh truth that there is a lot of competition out there and please be prepared to face it.
Every American who owns an IPOD and can surf the web thinks that he is hi-tech....
Americans still expect six figues salaries after high school educaiton....
My boss has been trying to hire a couple of EEs since the past couple of months but is not successful.....Ultimately he had to request me to find Indians graduating in the coming fall semester from the local university....
Also the poll shoule be structured as "Do you think American school system is not producing enough skilled workers with knowledge in STEM fields?"
'High tech jobs' and 'qualified workers' are all distractive terms for the larger malice in place: Americans taking for granted that jobs will be lined for them when they step out of college.
As a matter of fact Mr. Lou Dobbs is doing a big disservice to the American people by lying and not encounraging them to face the harsh truth that there is a lot of competition out there and please be prepared to face it.
more...
IAMINQ
03-18 05:19 AM
Dear Friend,
We don't know what was your understanding between you and your ex-employer, It seems to me that you voluntarily paid money when you are not supposed to. I am also not sure how you got an H1 transfer without getting paid... Lot of question marks ??? Its better you talk to a qualified attorney and get their opinion. You can definetly go after the ex-employer for not paying you which they are legally bound too.. You will get all your $$$$.
We don't know what was your understanding between you and your ex-employer, It seems to me that you voluntarily paid money when you are not supposed to. I am also not sure how you got an H1 transfer without getting paid... Lot of question marks ??? Its better you talk to a qualified attorney and get their opinion. You can definetly go after the ex-employer for not paying you which they are legally bound too.. You will get all your $$$$.
hair hairstyles justin bieber fans
mbawa2574
08-04 09:16 AM
Got a IO who was very detail oriented. She was good. According to her they are processing cases filed between June 16th and July 16th 2007. My name check is not cleared but she told that they have been updated on the new NC memo. Name check not required to approve an application, At this point of time , they are trying to approve old application with NC pending who have visa number available.
more...
EndlessWait
01-10 04:45 PM
So, this would mean anyone stuck in name check should never receive FP--correct? I don't think that's the case...i know of a lot of people who get FP notices every 15 (or is it 18?) months or so and are stuck in name checks forever.
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
just exactly what ur case status says ...mine hasn't changed ever since it transferred to nebraska..it still says "the case has been transferred to NSC becoz they've jurisdiction over it etc. etc '
thanks
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
just exactly what ur case status says ...mine hasn't changed ever since it transferred to nebraska..it still says "the case has been transferred to NSC becoz they've jurisdiction over it etc. etc '
thanks
hot Got a Twitter?
purplehazea
05-02 02:04 PM
Dude get a good attorney, I mean even if someone gives you advice here, we are just rookies!
more...
house justin bieber on csi.
Pria
01-10 09:49 AM
Thanks for the information. As suggested, I sent two PP size photos along with the docs.
Pria
Pria
tattoo justin bieber and jaden smith
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 justin bieber fake face.
BharatPremi
12-10 12:46 PM
any suggestions if 140 is not approved?
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
Yes. If I-140 is not approved, Do not use AC-21.
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
Yes. If I-140 is not approved, Do not use AC-21.
dresses justin bieber quiz book.
snathan
09-29 09:21 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.
I never knew this....:D
I never knew this....:D
more...
makeup justin bieber body hair.
thescadaman
11-04 09:23 AM
A little over a months time, I received a letter saying that the typo on my last name has been corrected. I could confirm that since the mailing address had all the correct details.
Hence, I guess, their typo correction system is a bit slow but it works!
ISSUE RESOLVED!
Hence, I guess, their typo correction system is a bit slow but it works!
ISSUE RESOLVED!
girlfriend justin bieber kleurplaat.
permfiling
02-01 09:52 PM
Hello there
I am student from Tri-valley university. On Jan 20th the college got shut down. I am working on CPT. I came to know about the shut down through my friends, with whom immigration officers met. Although no immigration officers contacted me by any means, my friends suggested me to look for another college and get enrolled as soon as within 30 days. While I tried to enroll in another college, I came to know that still the sevis is not yet released. Until the college releases our sevis, we are unable to enroll in any other college. We are elible to work only if we enroll into the college, get an I-20 and CPT. Now I am worried because until they release our sevis, the admissions in other colleges will meet deadline and what happens if they no more take admissions. Do you have any idea how long can it take for them to release our sevis ? Will it be safe for students like me hereafter to work fulltime on CPT ?
Thank you
Chaitanya
If you came to know that your school got shutdown from friends which indicates that you did not go physically to school. I myself was a student 10 yrs ago and I understand the hardships the student goes through but rules where rules always which are
1. Working on F1 without work authorization from school is deport able
2. Not maintaining grades also will result in loss of admission
It looks like your concern is to get a CPT to work rather then study. Until you are enrolled in school, you cannot work without proper authorization.
I am student from Tri-valley university. On Jan 20th the college got shut down. I am working on CPT. I came to know about the shut down through my friends, with whom immigration officers met. Although no immigration officers contacted me by any means, my friends suggested me to look for another college and get enrolled as soon as within 30 days. While I tried to enroll in another college, I came to know that still the sevis is not yet released. Until the college releases our sevis, we are unable to enroll in any other college. We are elible to work only if we enroll into the college, get an I-20 and CPT. Now I am worried because until they release our sevis, the admissions in other colleges will meet deadline and what happens if they no more take admissions. Do you have any idea how long can it take for them to release our sevis ? Will it be safe for students like me hereafter to work fulltime on CPT ?
Thank you
Chaitanya
If you came to know that your school got shutdown from friends which indicates that you did not go physically to school. I myself was a student 10 yrs ago and I understand the hardships the student goes through but rules where rules always which are
1. Working on F1 without work authorization from school is deport able
2. Not maintaining grades also will result in loss of admission
It looks like your concern is to get a CPT to work rather then study. Until you are enrolled in school, you cannot work without proper authorization.
hairstyles justin bieber smiling gif.
vikramy
09-02 10:48 AM
When i called last time when my wife EAD got approved, they told me the address on the application. So they should know.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
Folks,
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
Folks,
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
Bezzer
09-06 10:17 AM
is pixel stretching liquifying? cause thats cool...u can distort peoples faces and stuff like that...hehe:)
jayleno
02-01 04:28 PM
Kumar...if you are joking please put a smiley either before or after you exclamations. Tell me if you are not...I will join right away :). Who in the world doesn't want to become a "star quickly"?? :)
Start doing AmWay or QuickStar. That is the best thing a person can do !!!!!!
Start doing AmWay or QuickStar. That is the best thing a person can do !!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment