kondur_007
12-19 05:02 PM
I heard you can file Perm only if you are on H1 or other status and not on EAD (AOS Pending I485).
That is not true....
You certainly can file new PERM while on EAD. So go ahead and do EB3-EB2 porting...
Good Luck
That is not true....
You certainly can file new PERM while on EAD. So go ahead and do EB3-EB2 porting...
Good Luck
wallpaper neutrogena
new_horizon
07-14 06:27 PM
No. You must already have 485 pending, or you should be applying 765 along with your 485 concurrently. However to apply for 485, your PD must be current.
I got my labor and 140 cleared few months back under EB3, Can I apply for 765 to get my EAD ?
I have not applied for 485.
Please let me know.
thanks
I got my labor and 140 cleared few months back under EB3, Can I apply for 765 to get my EAD ?
I have not applied for 485.
Please let me know.
thanks
Blog Feeds
06-03 02:20 AM
What is a CAT? Not an animal, not a medical procedure, but a "Change of Attitude Transformation". The old INS may have morphed into the USCIS, the CBP and ICE, but the attitudes toward immigrants have not changed much since I worked there 30 years ago. As General Attorneys (Nationality) in the 1970s, our mantra was "when in doubt, send it out!" meaning that rather than recommend that a naturalization petition be granted, if we had the slightest degree of doubt, the safest course was to send the applicant's file to the investigations branch. Not to do so would risk...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/06/immigration-officers-in-need-of-a-cat.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/06/immigration-officers-in-need-of-a-cat.html)
2011 why not consider vintage
Foster2007
07-08 10:51 PM
All,
Over the past few days we have been successful in getting good media attention BUT except for NYT, the coverage has not focused on the issues that are relevant and will draw the attention of the policymakers. I think the media drive should focus on getting the following issues highlighted:
1. Lapse in protocol when issuing green cards
a) Green cards issued WITHOUT security clearence
b) Green cards issued to those whose PD was NOT current in June
2. Obvious intent to NOT accept applications in July so that they can receive the same with a higher fee in the future. This at the cost of making a mockery of hundreds of thousand of hopeful legal immigrants
I think the media drive should focus and highlight the above and other key issues rather than merely reporting on the sequence of events. Please share your thoughts and add to the list above
Over the past few days we have been successful in getting good media attention BUT except for NYT, the coverage has not focused on the issues that are relevant and will draw the attention of the policymakers. I think the media drive should focus on getting the following issues highlighted:
1. Lapse in protocol when issuing green cards
a) Green cards issued WITHOUT security clearence
b) Green cards issued to those whose PD was NOT current in June
2. Obvious intent to NOT accept applications in July so that they can receive the same with a higher fee in the future. This at the cost of making a mockery of hundreds of thousand of hopeful legal immigrants
I think the media drive should focus and highlight the above and other key issues rather than merely reporting on the sequence of events. Please share your thoughts and add to the list above
more...
gk_2000
02-18 09:59 PM
Hmmm .. Really don't know what to say!
Tortoise
09-02 12:07 PM
I have applied for AP (I131) on 8/14/09 and my I-485 got approved on 9/01/09. Is USCIS is going to return my I131 fee or is there anything I have to initiate from my end to get the refund?.
Pls do let me know.
Thanks in advance.
Pls do let me know.
Thanks in advance.
more...
Blog Feeds
02-15 08:40 PM
Maybe Joe has his own special Constitution.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/arpaio-i-have-the-inherent-right-to-enforce-immigration-laws.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/arpaio-i-have-the-inherent-right-to-enforce-immigration-laws.html)
2010 I found this vintage hairstyle
Macaca
05-19 07:30 AM
A New Reality in Washington, but Can It Last? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19assess.html) By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
more...
a_yaja
02-19 09:29 PM
I filed 485 last july and want to file EAD now. I had FP done last year. If I do efiling for EAD will I have to go to ASC for photos. I saw in other posts that they have linked Biometrics but what abt the photos ?
Thanks
eFiling EAD will result in ASC appointment for code 2 biometics (Finger Printing of right Index finger + photo). You need to take the appointment letter and one form of photo id (passport or drivers id).
I had my ASC apt. for eFiled EAD last week (Feb. 12th).
Thanks
eFiling EAD will result in ASC appointment for code 2 biometics (Finger Printing of right Index finger + photo). You need to take the appointment letter and one form of photo id (passport or drivers id).
I had my ASC apt. for eFiled EAD last week (Feb. 12th).
hair vintage hairstyles how to
Blog Feeds
07-15 03:01 PM
General Motors emerged from bankruptcy today and promises it is the beginning of a new age for America's leading car manufacturer. Canadian-born Ray Young, the child of Chinese immigrants, is one of the folks leading GM to what will hopefully be a return to profitability. Young was interviewed by CNBC this morning and rightfully noted that every product GM launches must be a winner if the company is going to succeed. Young also indicated that GM is planning on having an initial public offering of new shares in the next few months in order to repay loans to taxpayers. GM...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-ray-young-gm-cfo.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-ray-young-gm-cfo.html)
more...
ravi98
04-28 08:05 AM
Here's a thought!
Why not install a microchip into every elected official, so that they are never ever tempted to do anything wrong ............. this way they truly will be working for the american people instead of themselves.
Why not install a microchip into every elected official, so that they are never ever tempted to do anything wrong ............. this way they truly will be working for the american people instead of themselves.
hot This will take about 15
GCard_Dream
04-30 02:26 PM
For those of you who either are residents (Citizens or PRs) or Canada or have been thinking about becoming residents of Canada but working in US, please share your experience in terms of:
1. How you maintain your residency (or non-residency) in both countries.
2. What are the tax implications if you maintain residency in both countries,
specially if you own property in Canada.
I have heard stories about tax implications in Canada if you own property there even if you permanently live an work in the US. Is that true? Would you be considered a resident in Canada for tax purposes just because you own property (such as vacation homes) but live permanently in US.
I currently own a property in Canada but have been living and working in US for past 8 years and really worried about any tax implications in Canada because of the property. Any help would be very much appreciated.
1. How you maintain your residency (or non-residency) in both countries.
2. What are the tax implications if you maintain residency in both countries,
specially if you own property in Canada.
I have heard stories about tax implications in Canada if you own property there even if you permanently live an work in the US. Is that true? Would you be considered a resident in Canada for tax purposes just because you own property (such as vacation homes) but live permanently in US.
I currently own a property in Canada but have been living and working in US for past 8 years and really worried about any tax implications in Canada because of the property. Any help would be very much appreciated.
more...
house images vintage hairstyles long
ashokmads
02-13 04:10 PM
Hi All,
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
tattoo Vintage Hairstyles for Women
africanKing
06-13 08:42 AM
I need help. How do i, after importing the Photoshop file, convert the different parts of the file into usable Controls like Buttons, Textboxes etc. And how do i then add Events in them so i can code in Visual Studio
more...
pictures only how to make the look work
anilsal
02-01 05:19 PM
and letters is all that is needed for now....
dresses How much thought have you
pttuanzhang
06-02 07:49 PM
You're right, I really admire
more...
makeup consider vintage hairstyle
ibb
02-08 05:04 PM
If I apply for H1b in April, 2008 and choose consular visa processing, and the H1b starts in Oct, 2008. Do I have to go to the consular for a H1b visa? I might receive a EAD from 485 before October, and if I do, I would like to use EAD but keep the option of H1b open.
Can anyone answer me???
Say I don't activate my H1b in Oct 2008, but H1b is valid for three years, does it mean I can activate it any time by going to the consular for a H1b visa from 10/2008 to 09/2011? Of course I will keep my status valid (AOS) throughout the period.
Thank you for your answer!!!
Can anyone answer me???
Say I don't activate my H1b in Oct 2008, but H1b is valid for three years, does it mean I can activate it any time by going to the consular for a H1b visa from 10/2008 to 09/2011? Of course I will keep my status valid (AOS) throughout the period.
Thank you for your answer!!!
girlfriend in vintage hairstyles.
nimb
07-09 10:12 PM
AILF lawsuit update from Murthy website. Includes forms and FAQs.
http://murthy.com/ailf_lawsuit.html
http://murthy.com/ailf_lawsuit.html
hairstyles Men#39;s vintage hairstyles
ajaz
07-25 04:19 PM
My ND is july-12-2007
I am yet to receive by FP,
How will I come to know my FP appointment date, my attorney is not cooperating, please help.. :D
I am yet to receive by FP,
How will I come to know my FP appointment date, my attorney is not cooperating, please help.. :D
delhirocks
06-29 11:47 AM
Anyone know of any good GC lawyers in Chicago Land area...
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
Though I can't answer your question, Isn't USCIS, in the process of disabling PD portability?
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
Though I can't answer your question, Isn't USCIS, in the process of disabling PD portability?
pappu
06-03 10:32 AM
Yes IV recognizes this issue and that a lot of our members are suffering from it. We also recognize the cutoff date and how all new applicants will suffer from it. Please read my post in the funding drive thread. If you have questions on IV position or work, you can PM us. Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment