meridiani.planum
06-01 08:01 PM
I just happened to see a copy of my labor approval. My current salary is less than the salary mentioned in labor approval. Do you know whether it is legally valid?. My salary is as per the LCA for H1.
its fine. Your salary should match the LCA salary. The LC salary is for 'future job'. the only place it might come into play is if your employer is very small, and there are ability-to-pay issues (here, if your current salary matches LC salary then its easier to say that employer has ability to pay).
its fine. Your salary should match the LCA salary. The LC salary is for 'future job'. the only place it might come into play is if your employer is very small, and there are ability-to-pay issues (here, if your current salary matches LC salary then its easier to say that employer has ability to pay).
wallpaper laksa paste
chanduv23
03-04 11:04 AM
Dear IV Lawyers,
First of all a big thanks for all the help to the community. There is a new issue cooking up and is happening more frequently these days and the issue is with aceptance of EAD for employment.
We have been hearing cases where jobs offers are rescinded, because company deicded not to hire EAD holders or the first question a company representative asks is what kind of work authorization do you have? if someone says EAD, then the process never even goes further and doors are shut.
i - 9 form clearly says that one cannot discriminate against EAD.
At the most an employer has to verify if it is 180 days past filing 485 and if the job is similar ( which is in 99.99% of cases which is why the candidate applies for the job). After that, all an employer has to provide is a employment verification letter in case of an RFE/NOID/Wrongful denial - which means that employer does not really sponsor the Green card or transfer the process. Employer does not even have to fill out any forms or do any labor market formalities nor has to file any fees.
A simple employment verification letter is given for a lot of reasons like home mortgage, loans, bank, DMV and veriety of reasons and this is also a reason.
My question is - how do we tackle the question if work status is EAD or GC because most times it is asked as a casual question before the interview or during the interview or after the interview.
My hiring manager who was helping me with my RFE EVL (few years back) told me that in future he wont entertain such things and will make sure he does not hire anyone with such issues. I guess thats is what is happening everywhere because of the RFEs or wrongful denials and with the tough job market, it is a good way to filter out people.
Your suggestions and comments are appreciated.
First of all a big thanks for all the help to the community. There is a new issue cooking up and is happening more frequently these days and the issue is with aceptance of EAD for employment.
We have been hearing cases where jobs offers are rescinded, because company deicded not to hire EAD holders or the first question a company representative asks is what kind of work authorization do you have? if someone says EAD, then the process never even goes further and doors are shut.
i - 9 form clearly says that one cannot discriminate against EAD.
At the most an employer has to verify if it is 180 days past filing 485 and if the job is similar ( which is in 99.99% of cases which is why the candidate applies for the job). After that, all an employer has to provide is a employment verification letter in case of an RFE/NOID/Wrongful denial - which means that employer does not really sponsor the Green card or transfer the process. Employer does not even have to fill out any forms or do any labor market formalities nor has to file any fees.
A simple employment verification letter is given for a lot of reasons like home mortgage, loans, bank, DMV and veriety of reasons and this is also a reason.
My question is - how do we tackle the question if work status is EAD or GC because most times it is asked as a casual question before the interview or during the interview or after the interview.
My hiring manager who was helping me with my RFE EVL (few years back) told me that in future he wont entertain such things and will make sure he does not hire anyone with such issues. I guess thats is what is happening everywhere because of the RFEs or wrongful denials and with the tough job market, it is a good way to filter out people.
Your suggestions and comments are appreciated.
ghost
12-10 02:31 PM
Just throw away your legal papers. change your name, show your photograph with the statue of liberty and declare yourself illegal in the country for last 5 years. go to school, enjoy a better in-state tuition and get a better job. Green Card Voila!!!!
Dream act just proves that nothing will be done for hard working non shitizens. Legals should work and wait or leave as they dont have any DREAM. And yes we got a spineless president on that.
Keep dreaming. DREAM act ain't going anywhere.
Oye chuck they fatte.
If DREAM act does not pass then we will not go anywhere for the next 2 years....and how do you intend to prove that you were brought into this country illegally before you turned 16? I guess you'll have to forge your high-school degree? voila...go for it!
Dream act just proves that nothing will be done for hard working non shitizens. Legals should work and wait or leave as they dont have any DREAM. And yes we got a spineless president on that.
Keep dreaming. DREAM act ain't going anywhere.
Oye chuck they fatte.
If DREAM act does not pass then we will not go anywhere for the next 2 years....and how do you intend to prove that you were brought into this country illegally before you turned 16? I guess you'll have to forge your high-school degree? voila...go for it!
2011 Singapore Curry Laksa
JunRN
08-11 05:19 PM
That is not a flaw in the system and in the USCIS manual, they know it. Since the previous I-140 is already approved and you've stayed more than 6 months in that I-140, then there's no need for the ability to pay. USCIS is treating your case as if you already have a GC, it is just that it is pending.
If one has a GC, he can transfer to another employer. It is your risk if your new employer has not the ability to pay you. The same is true with portability, USCIS doesn't care anymore if you transfer to an employer with no ability to pay you because the first I-140 is already approved and you worked for it already. They are concerned now about your I-485 (AOS) and your qualifications under it.
If one has a GC, he can transfer to another employer. It is your risk if your new employer has not the ability to pay you. The same is true with portability, USCIS doesn't care anymore if you transfer to an employer with no ability to pay you because the first I-140 is already approved and you worked for it already. They are concerned now about your I-485 (AOS) and your qualifications under it.
more...
akred
06-03 02:05 PM
The question that was asked was - is Statistics a STEM discipline. That cannot be answered from that page even though it looks so. For e.g if I choose the Mathematics Major, it only lists the occupation that requires a Math Major and not the disciplines under Math. For e.g. one one of the occupation is Natural Sciences Managers which is an occupation and not exactly a discipline.
sta�tis�tics (stə-tĭs'tĭks)
n.
(used with a sing. verb) The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling.
(used with a pl. verb) Numerical data.http://www.answers.com/statistics&r=67
I would be astounded if statistics is not considered a STEM major. The only way to know for sure beyond this forum is to check with a lawyer.
sta�tis�tics (stə-tĭs'tĭks)
n.
(used with a sing. verb) The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling.
(used with a pl. verb) Numerical data.http://www.answers.com/statistics&r=67
I would be astounded if statistics is not considered a STEM major. The only way to know for sure beyond this forum is to check with a lawyer.
Apollon
06-30 06:57 PM
I realize the PERM position requirement must match EB2 track requirement, it must be what you said. However, what I'm questioning is (lets assume we're not talking about Masters degree at all, only BA+5 alternative) - does it make a difference *for position requirement*, not EB2, if part of the "+5" in the position requirement came before the bachelors degree was completed? Can this job requirement be without restriction all of the "+5" comes after graduation, and still qualify for EB2, where all "+5" must come after degree requirements have been satisfied?
I'll give an example, to avoid misunderstandings:
lets say a person completed BA or B.Sc. in March 2004. Lets say this person has worked in the same filed for 2 years before March 2004. Lets say after March 2004 until TODAY, when the PERM application is filed this person has continuously worked in the field for 5.5 more years, but when he was hired for his current position 1 year ago he had only 4.5 years post graduate experience.
What we have here is 6.5 years work experience until the person was hired, but only 4.5 years total post graduate experience until hiring date.
The Question is: Can the sponsor claim job requirement is BA+5, even though at the time when this person was hired post graduate experience was 4.5 years and total 6.5 years?
I'll give an example, to avoid misunderstandings:
lets say a person completed BA or B.Sc. in March 2004. Lets say this person has worked in the same filed for 2 years before March 2004. Lets say after March 2004 until TODAY, when the PERM application is filed this person has continuously worked in the field for 5.5 more years, but when he was hired for his current position 1 year ago he had only 4.5 years post graduate experience.
What we have here is 6.5 years work experience until the person was hired, but only 4.5 years total post graduate experience until hiring date.
The Question is: Can the sponsor claim job requirement is BA+5, even though at the time when this person was hired post graduate experience was 4.5 years and total 6.5 years?
more...
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
2010 laksa singapore recipe.
srikondoji
09-14 07:21 PM
Guys,
Post a link to the recorded radio interview. I want to listen tonight.
--sri
Post a link to the recorded radio interview. I want to listen tonight.
--sri
more...
patelkirti
04-17 08:55 AM
Hi All,
I am an aspiring US immigrant, and currently work with a desi-like employer who has not been paying me for last 3 months. I have resigned and started working at a new employer, using portability options. I will also contact DOL and report this to get my money back, however, DOL may not be able to recover it if the employer files for bankruptcy. I donot care much about money now, as its not too much and my new job increment covers it.
Here are my questions
1) Is there a way i can report this misdoing to USCIS directly. Is there any phone number/contact info to report frauds on I-140s and I-485s as he is holding some employees hostage (not allowing them to move out because of this situation where your money is stuck and so is your immigration).
2) What else should i do to make this injustice visible? I will work with DOl and get my money back.
3) I am thinking of reporting this directly to the I-140 processing centers. Is this is a good idea?
PK
I am an aspiring US immigrant, and currently work with a desi-like employer who has not been paying me for last 3 months. I have resigned and started working at a new employer, using portability options. I will also contact DOL and report this to get my money back, however, DOL may not be able to recover it if the employer files for bankruptcy. I donot care much about money now, as its not too much and my new job increment covers it.
Here are my questions
1) Is there a way i can report this misdoing to USCIS directly. Is there any phone number/contact info to report frauds on I-140s and I-485s as he is holding some employees hostage (not allowing them to move out because of this situation where your money is stuck and so is your immigration).
2) What else should i do to make this injustice visible? I will work with DOl and get my money back.
3) I am thinking of reporting this directly to the I-140 processing centers. Is this is a good idea?
PK
hair Laksa
desigun
04-26 05:41 PM
Only yesterday i called up to check for my mom, who will be coming to US from India. The CS rep clearly told me that she is allowed 2 X 50 lbs and 1 Carry on (18lbs) in her journey.
more...
gotgc?
02-03 05:04 PM
I have used my Canadian PR card for transit thru the UK while on AP. It was quite some time back though. The gate agent took a while to go thru my docs, but was satisfied and was allowed to board both ways. The verification obviously took a bit longer on the way back to the US, but nothing unusual. If I remember well, I did carry a copy of the transit rules with me in case there was any issue. My guess is you should be fine.
Thanks for your reply...judt wanted to make sure, did you travel to and from USA? Where did they check your documents?when you mention gate agent, which gate agent it is? is it your departure airport staff or London Immigration? On the way back who did check these documents? I am planning to take the transit rules with me as well...please let me know
Thanks for your reply...judt wanted to make sure, did you travel to and from USA? Where did they check your documents?when you mention gate agent, which gate agent it is? is it your departure airport staff or London Immigration? On the way back who did check these documents? I am planning to take the transit rules with me as well...please let me know
hot laksa janggus+goreng
Nov2004
08-26 01:08 PM
Bump^^^^
can you please let us know some details. I am in the same situation.
Nov2004, eb3, i140 approved and i485 applied.
1. What happens to the present ead, after filing the new i140.
2.after i140 do we have to apply for new i485?
can you please let us know some details. I am in the same situation.
Nov2004, eb3, i140 approved and i485 applied.
1. What happens to the present ead, after filing the new i140.
2.after i140 do we have to apply for new i485?
more...
house maggie mee assam laksa
sash
06-19 09:48 PM
I am not sure I understand your comments. Can you elaborate on the risks and required travel documents?
tattoo Laksa, RM3.00
Siboo
07-28 07:22 PM
My prediction for this year..
EB1 = Current
EB2 = Jan 2003 (Because of BEC cases coming out, chance for them to file I-485 in October)
EB3 = U
This looks like September 13 bulletin.
What about October 02, 2007 update??:D :D
EB1 = Current
EB2 = Jan 2003 (Because of BEC cases coming out, chance for them to file I-485 in October)
EB3 = U
This looks like September 13 bulletin.
What about October 02, 2007 update??:D :D
more...
pictures Curry Laksa: I didn#39;t think
small2006
08-20 02:38 PM
I gto the same response last week. They were so adamant in denying me the info that I got frustrated and hung up on her.:mad:
dresses Fish Head Noodle with Laksa
ps57002
12-28 10:39 AM
Only God knows how they calculate what processing dates to put up. even their IO's are baffled. NBS shows I131/AP as 3 months now. Mine is way outside processing time now according to new processing times. So I called IO and she's like "now why did they post that, it's not even correct. I'm getting calls regarding that now since a.m.). She was nice though even though I offered she didn't have to do a SR as I'm not travelling anytime soon unless emergency comes up (i'm on EAD and so totally dependent now on AP in case of travel as have no valid H1b). She still put in a request for me. Nice IO. but fact is even their IO's are surprised by what they put in processing times.
more...
makeup Laksa and Fresh Oysters!
Gravitation
03-27 10:33 PM
... "Its the Journey that matters, not the destination"
Every tried to catch the last bus home on a rainy evening?
Every tried to catch the last bus home on a rainy evening?
girlfriend Ah Cheng Laksa – Cineleisure
aachoo
05-02 06:11 PM
Doesnt matter if the I-94 is only till the visa expiry. There is another I-94 at the bottom of the approved I-797 that ends on the extended 797 date.
-a
-a
hairstyles is not curry laksa mee.
hojo
09-04 09:12 PM
awesome, thanks for the tutorial, thats mighty handy Jubba
gc_on_demand
12-21 05:07 PM
Good to know someone at least thought about our poor souls
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/12/kundras_managem.html;jsessionid=VEGR0THB1JIVRQE1GH OSKHWATMY32JVN
All you get is CSS change ? new theme and color...
One of my personal case is approved long back and still showing as Initial Receipt.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/12/kundras_managem.html;jsessionid=VEGR0THB1JIVRQE1GH OSKHWATMY32JVN
All you get is CSS change ? new theme and color...
One of my personal case is approved long back and still showing as Initial Receipt.
sundar99
05-01 01:39 PM
Does - Emergency Appoinment include - people already working in US ? are you sure ?
No comments:
Post a Comment