hopefulgc
08-30 07:36 AM
Not illegal if you are also present in the recording.
- son of a lawyer... not a lawyer myself.
Isnt recording conversations without the consent illegal? :confused:
- son of a lawyer... not a lawyer myself.
Isnt recording conversations without the consent illegal? :confused:
wallpaper funny quotes. famous funny
dreamgc_real
08-03 12:05 PM
My EAD details
Mailed Date : 5/24/10
Received Date : 5/26/10
Notice Date: 06/03/10
Checks Cashed: Yes
File Type: Paper/E-filed/Lawyer - Lawyer
Service Center/Lockbox : TSC
RFE DATE: N/A
RFE Description: N/A
SR Opened: Yes ( 07/26/2010)
InfoPass: NO
Current EAD Expiry: 9/03/10
Approval Date:
Approval Desc:
EAD Validity:
I have opened SR @( 07/26/2010) and got the reply back by mail below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The status of the Service Request is
Case type:-- I765
The status of this service request is: Due to the high volume of expedite requests for this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
Since the date we received your case, we denied your case and send a notice of explaining our decision to you on 06/25/2010 to the file we have on the file
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this denial of service request or denial of EAD Renewal?
I am confused. Lawyer or I never received any denial notice so for and online case status showing initial review with LUD of 06/26/2010.
What should I do now? Please let me know.
Thx
KPR
What does your lawyer say? He should be able to let you know exactly what the letter means - denial for SR or EAD. Check with him.
Mailed Date : 5/24/10
Received Date : 5/26/10
Notice Date: 06/03/10
Checks Cashed: Yes
File Type: Paper/E-filed/Lawyer - Lawyer
Service Center/Lockbox : TSC
RFE DATE: N/A
RFE Description: N/A
SR Opened: Yes ( 07/26/2010)
InfoPass: NO
Current EAD Expiry: 9/03/10
Approval Date:
Approval Desc:
EAD Validity:
I have opened SR @( 07/26/2010) and got the reply back by mail below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The status of the Service Request is
Case type:-- I765
The status of this service request is: Due to the high volume of expedite requests for this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
Since the date we received your case, we denied your case and send a notice of explaining our decision to you on 06/25/2010 to the file we have on the file
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this denial of service request or denial of EAD Renewal?
I am confused. Lawyer or I never received any denial notice so for and online case status showing initial review with LUD of 06/26/2010.
What should I do now? Please let me know.
Thx
KPR
What does your lawyer say? He should be able to let you know exactly what the letter means - denial for SR or EAD. Check with him.
chinna2003
03-13 05:36 PM
Hey Kris
I really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to Jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
I really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to Jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
2011 funny quotes about sex. famous
belmontboy
12-05 12:12 PM
http://minx.cc/?post=279217
you live your life dude, don't let any other M'fer control it!!!
some LOSER! gave me a red for this post. The coward's comment was "is this how you talk to your mother...."
What a jackass!!!
Must be a terrorist sympathizer!!!
you live your life dude, don't let any other M'fer control it!!!
some LOSER! gave me a red for this post. The coward's comment was "is this how you talk to your mother...."
What a jackass!!!
Must be a terrorist sympathizer!!!
more...
srarao
07-19 02:30 PM
Can somebody let me know
.gif "Funny and humorous quotes")
hkimmi
12-22 06:05 PM
Does one have to stick to old employer for 180 days after I-140 is approved before person can start with new employer and port priority date from previous job ?
I never heard of that 180 day rule for I140.. better to check with Attorney...
even Iam interested to know that .....
I never heard of that 180 day rule for I140.. better to check with Attorney...
even Iam interested to know that .....
more...
gc_check
01-08 10:22 AM
I got it in a week, I got it from SF Consulate.
This might be a simple stupid question,
Can you please update, if you used a standard 2*2 passport taken here in the applicaiton form or got one 3.5 cm * 3.5 cm as put in the passport form. If yes, where did you took one. The standard size Passport Photo appears to be a little bigger than the one specified in the Passport application.
This might be a simple stupid question,
Can you please update, if you used a standard 2*2 passport taken here in the applicaiton form or got one 3.5 cm * 3.5 cm as put in the passport form. If yes, where did you took one. The standard size Passport Photo appears to be a little bigger than the one specified in the Passport application.
2010 Funny 500 - Famous Quotes
fester8542
05-27 09:34 PM
golgi Your ugly arse site was moooooooooooving...
This has to be the strangest battle ever! Leave it to you to come up with an idea like that...
This has to be the strangest battle ever! Leave it to you to come up with an idea like that...
more...
signin241
04-04 02:00 PM
I filed my 485 in August and got married later and my wife is on H4 right now. I'm on H1 as of now. I'm not using my EAD right now, so that my wife can maintain her H4 status. I'm planning her F1 processing from H4, so that once she is on F1 officially, I want to use EAD to change employers.
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
Is there any risk involved here and if so, please let me know
Thanks in Advance
hair famous quotes, or funny jokes
joeshmoe
03-26 04:30 PM
Don't listen to those who would tell you that you need 5 years after your degree was awarded. TALK TO A FREAKING LAWYER.
Well... thanks for your reply but maybe you are one of the lucky ones who never been scr... up by the lawyers in the past. Well.. I have and others as well. Just becuase the lawyer says "it can be done" (read: pay now and we will see what USCIS will say later) I am not necessarily going to believe in that ...
CIRcus is in the early stages of the show so hopefully it will pick up the steam soon I will not need to go through the EB2/EB3 pains ....
Well... thanks for your reply but maybe you are one of the lucky ones who never been scr... up by the lawyers in the past. Well.. I have and others as well. Just becuase the lawyer says "it can be done" (read: pay now and we will see what USCIS will say later) I am not necessarily going to believe in that ...
CIRcus is in the early stages of the show so hopefully it will pick up the steam soon I will not need to go through the EB2/EB3 pains ....
more...
IneedAllGreen
12-21 11:27 AM
Here is the chance to to show what are we doing at this forum at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Core members and expert from Midwest and Milwaukee area can enroll to attend this conference on immigration. Below is the information i am copying from UWM wesite. For further information you can click link written in below infromation.
CfP, "Immigration: Many Faces; Many Facets"
(Campus)
Apr. 26-27, 2007
Immigration, a salient public policy and humanitarian concern across the nation, will be the subject of the IRE's conference to be held at UW-Milwaukee's School of Continuing Education, 161 W. Wisconsin Ave., 7th Floor, in downtown Milwaukee.
Currently, the IRE is soliciting conference proposals from prospective submitters. We encourage presentations, either by individuals or groups/panels, from faculty, academic staff, community leaders
and activists, government officials and policymakers, etc.
Please go o to our website, www.uwm.edu/Dept/IRE, and follow the link to the actual Call for Conference Proposals. Here you will find a list of possible topics and themes, and well as the submission format. The due date to submit a conference proposal is December 22, 2006. We will contact you with a response by January 19, 2007.
More information...
Contact: Tom Tonnesen
tonnesen@uwm.edu
(414) 229-4700
Thanks
IneedAllGreen
CfP, "Immigration: Many Faces; Many Facets"
(Campus)
Apr. 26-27, 2007
Immigration, a salient public policy and humanitarian concern across the nation, will be the subject of the IRE's conference to be held at UW-Milwaukee's School of Continuing Education, 161 W. Wisconsin Ave., 7th Floor, in downtown Milwaukee.
Currently, the IRE is soliciting conference proposals from prospective submitters. We encourage presentations, either by individuals or groups/panels, from faculty, academic staff, community leaders
and activists, government officials and policymakers, etc.
Please go o to our website, www.uwm.edu/Dept/IRE, and follow the link to the actual Call for Conference Proposals. Here you will find a list of possible topics and themes, and well as the submission format. The due date to submit a conference proposal is December 22, 2006. We will contact you with a response by January 19, 2007.
More information...
Contact: Tom Tonnesen
tonnesen@uwm.edu
(414) 229-4700
Thanks
IneedAllGreen
hot Funny Life Quote
$eeGrEeN
05-15 09:31 AM
This is totally ludacris to me. Even though the bulletin expects movement going forward, there is no assurance that the dates will not go back. On the flip side, I am wondering if USCIS/DOS wanted to fully utilize the 140K visas this year and just moved the dates too much ahead. If thats the case, the dates might not move again or retrogress back further. DOS official Oppenheimer mentioned that atleast 10-11k were wasted last year. I still feel that the dates are going to go back some time sooner or later without congressional law changes.
This means that we have to stay put and work towards our common goal of getting the system fixed.
yup , rightly said....
This means that we have to stay put and work towards our common goal of getting the system fixed.
yup , rightly said....
more...
house funny quotes, funny stuff,
nc14
05-14 09:10 PM
Thanks Guys, It is very reassuring to hear from you.
.................................................. ......................
$100 + $20 recurring
.................................................. ......................
$100 + $20 recurring
tattoo Funny and humorous quotes
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
pictures Tags: funny quotes
ppp
01-17 12:40 PM
Hi all,
I recieved AINP File number on Nov -05-2009. Since then i havent recieved anything else.Can anyone send me the link to check the processing time for AINP, a part from the this link (Alberta, Canada - Immigration : Processing times (http://www.albertacanada.com/immigration/immigrate/processingtimes.html)).
Thanks in Advance.
PPP
I recieved AINP File number on Nov -05-2009. Since then i havent recieved anything else.Can anyone send me the link to check the processing time for AINP, a part from the this link (Alberta, Canada - Immigration : Processing times (http://www.albertacanada.com/immigration/immigrate/processingtimes.html)).
Thanks in Advance.
PPP
dresses funny quotes about life with
h1techSlave
09-27 10:25 AM
This is very much correct. And it is also the reason to position fixing immigration system as a remedy for both legal and illegal immigration. If you propose a help for legal immigrants, lawmakers are not going to listen to you as much as if you proposed something that fixes both legal immigration and encourages less illegal immigration in the future. It is that simple.
"Aligning with illegals will be benefitial to us." That was the philosophy that we have been following all along. The result - you talk to an average American and he thinks we are illegals. You talk to lawmakers (IV's lawmaker meeting attendees can confirm this) and the lawmakers think we are illegals. That is why we may have start thinking of another strategy.
Now, amnesty bills are not the only bills that congress wants to pass. There are many other bills, that the general US population is interested in. Universal health care or defence related bills. Why not we latch on to one of those things?
I perfectly understand that we need support from some one else to pass our provisions. What I am saying is - illegal bus is NOT the only bus out there. Let's look around, there might be other buses to carry us to our destination.
"Aligning with illegals will be benefitial to us." That was the philosophy that we have been following all along. The result - you talk to an average American and he thinks we are illegals. You talk to lawmakers (IV's lawmaker meeting attendees can confirm this) and the lawmakers think we are illegals. That is why we may have start thinking of another strategy.
Now, amnesty bills are not the only bills that congress wants to pass. There are many other bills, that the general US population is interested in. Universal health care or defence related bills. Why not we latch on to one of those things?
I perfectly understand that we need support from some one else to pass our provisions. What I am saying is - illegal bus is NOT the only bus out there. Let's look around, there might be other buses to carry us to our destination.
more...
makeup Famous Funny Quotes
cessua
10-13 07:09 PM
How much of an argument we have if US keeps toping rankings of most competitive countries to do business in the world?
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5454.html
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/BCI.pdf
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5454.html
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/BCI.pdf
girlfriend Funny quotes t shirts.
nimb
10-15 11:43 PM
may be not related ... but can someone explain what does this line mean ...
The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
does this mean that while invoking AC21, you have to tell your new employer to support your GC application ? hope not ! whole purpose of using EAD is to get rid of sponsorship non-sense....
anyone ?
probably yes. Recently, I saw number of threads on where AC21 beneficiaries have been asked to submit 'ability to pay' documents from new employer. :(
The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
does this mean that while invoking AC21, you have to tell your new employer to support your GC application ? hope not ! whole purpose of using EAD is to get rid of sponsorship non-sense....
anyone ?
probably yes. Recently, I saw number of threads on where AC21 beneficiaries have been asked to submit 'ability to pay' documents from new employer. :(
hairstyles famous funny quotes. cute love
yabadaba
06-21 09:50 AM
we can only guess
i would assume cases that are not substitute labor, porting priotity date, cross chargeability, clear birth certificates, clear employer verification letter, no namecheck issues, no fingerprinting issues, etc
i would assume cases that are not substitute labor, porting priotity date, cross chargeability, clear birth certificates, clear employer verification letter, no namecheck issues, no fingerprinting issues, etc
hsingh82
05-07 12:02 AM
Did the police officers say anything against the deities or your culture? From your post, I assume no..if that's the case then you should understand the police officers are trained not to take their shoes off and take protective measures for themselves first when they are in these situations. In fact , even an internet cable guy won't take his/her shoes off when at work. As long as their purpose was not to harass you and they came with good intensions to help your family (in case something was really going on) you should take positives out of it that they acted quickly but only you can tell how they behaved and if your race or culture affected their behavior.
jungalee43
06-29 05:51 PM
Hey guys. Please help me. for the first time I am posting a question.
All my details are in this thread.
"http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/ac21-portability-after-180-days-485-filing/11341-did-anyone-actually-use-ac21-11.html#post420955"
Now after AC21 - Two RFEs on that - gap in EAD I have received a notice for initial interview. It basically says: -
Who should come with you?
if the petition is based on your marriage, your petitioner spouse.
if the petition is based on parental relationship, your sponsoring parents or child.
What should you bring with you.
All EADs, Travel documents, all I-94s etc.
Originals and copies of All the supporting documentation submitted with the application.
Birth certificates.
Letter from current employer and last IT returns.
We have not received any notice for my wife. There is no LUD on any case for last one month. And the case is at national benefits Center, interview in Atlanta. I am just confused. What does this mean? What is meant by all supporting documentation submitted with the application?
I am completely confused, worried and getting tense. Can anyone throw some light on this please????????????????
__________________________________________________ ________________
Donation to IV $1000+ so far.
All my details are in this thread.
"http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/ac21-portability-after-180-days-485-filing/11341-did-anyone-actually-use-ac21-11.html#post420955"
Now after AC21 - Two RFEs on that - gap in EAD I have received a notice for initial interview. It basically says: -
Who should come with you?
if the petition is based on your marriage, your petitioner spouse.
if the petition is based on parental relationship, your sponsoring parents or child.
What should you bring with you.
All EADs, Travel documents, all I-94s etc.
Originals and copies of All the supporting documentation submitted with the application.
Birth certificates.
Letter from current employer and last IT returns.
We have not received any notice for my wife. There is no LUD on any case for last one month. And the case is at national benefits Center, interview in Atlanta. I am just confused. What does this mean? What is meant by all supporting documentation submitted with the application?
I am completely confused, worried and getting tense. Can anyone throw some light on this please????????????????
__________________________________________________ ________________
Donation to IV $1000+ so far.
No comments:
Post a Comment