RareRFEon485
04-16 09:49 AM
Please explain how you have worked in Illinios for XYZ company( my GC sponsoring Company) living in MN,WA and TX.
The above description is the one line RFE that I got. I don't have more details to give. I guess am like any other consultant who works in different states( Most of them).
My 140 is approved in Dec 2007. I had 1st RFE on I-485 and submitted the same in Dec 2009. for pay stubs and other things. This is the second RFE. I will consult good attorney. Any advise is helpful.
Also I entered US on AP and I started my own company few months back. I am still working for GC sponsoring company. If by my bad luck my 485 gets denied..what are my options? Also I have my H1 petition valid till May 2012 but I don't have it stamped. Do I need to leave the country and get it stamped?
The above description is the one line RFE that I got. I don't have more details to give. I guess am like any other consultant who works in different states( Most of them).
My 140 is approved in Dec 2007. I had 1st RFE on I-485 and submitted the same in Dec 2009. for pay stubs and other things. This is the second RFE. I will consult good attorney. Any advise is helpful.
Also I entered US on AP and I started my own company few months back. I am still working for GC sponsoring company. If by my bad luck my 485 gets denied..what are my options? Also I have my H1 petition valid till May 2012 but I don't have it stamped. Do I need to leave the country and get it stamped?
wallpaper Game Over
wandmaker
11-19 12:19 AM
You can use "nunc-pro-tunc" to get H4 extension. There has been lot of information and discussion at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15408
natrajs
08-13 10:23 PM
My I - 140 was filed in TSC and approved and I-485 also sent to TSC
2011 game over.
sunanda_guru
11-09 01:53 PM
Hi Ramya,
You can walk out of Wipro paying them nothing,
Have you signed any document or bond which is valid here in United states, then you might have to consult the lawyer otherwise if it is very staight froward case,
One sided bonds not going to last long in court,
Good luck.
You can walk out of Wipro paying them nothing,
Have you signed any document or bond which is valid here in United states, then you might have to consult the lawyer otherwise if it is very staight froward case,
One sided bonds not going to last long in court,
Good luck.
more...
suave100
01-30 10:50 AM
I am currently on H1B and in the process of leaving my current employer XYZ Inc. I also have an EAD that I haven't used yet but plan to use going forward. I understand that XYZ will and is rather obligated to notify USCIS of termination of my H1B employment by virtue of which, USICS will take steps to revoke the H1B petition. That being said,
1. Will I (beneficiary) and / or XYZ (petitioner) will receive a notice saying my H1B petition has been revoked?
2. Will it help in any shape or form if I were to fill an (back dated) I-9 form with XYZ indicating that I was already on EAD with XYZ before my termination? In this case, is XYZ still obligated to notify USCIS of termination of my H1B employment?
3. What constitutes a "bona fide termination" and is this even applicable in my case? Should I have a formal resignation letter in place for audit / RFE purposes down the road, if any?
1. Will I (beneficiary) and / or XYZ (petitioner) will receive a notice saying my H1B petition has been revoked?
2. Will it help in any shape or form if I were to fill an (back dated) I-9 form with XYZ indicating that I was already on EAD with XYZ before my termination? In this case, is XYZ still obligated to notify USCIS of termination of my H1B employment?
3. What constitutes a "bona fide termination" and is this even applicable in my case? Should I have a formal resignation letter in place for audit / RFE purposes down the road, if any?
Macaca
06-14 08:33 PM
For Democratic Leaders, a Fear That the Focus on the War Has Blurred (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/washington/14cong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By JEFF ZELENY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), June 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, June 13 � President Bush had barely left the Capitol after immigration talks there on Tuesday when Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, walked onto the Senate floor to call for a moment of silence. It was time, Mr. Reid said, to pay tribute to American soldiers in Iraq as their death toll reached 3,500.
A short time earlier, Mr. Reid convened a conference call with liberal bloggers, offering assurances that Democrats would revive debate over the Iraq war. And he pledged to revive it soon, ending the silence that followed the White House�s outmaneuvering of Democrats last month to win more money for the war without a timeline to end it.
�They�ve been driving this debate very well,� Mr. Reid said later, speaking of the bloggers who have been pushing for Congress to end the war. �I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high.�
It has been nearly three weeks since Democrats have held a formal Iraq debate or voted on an Iraq proposal in the House or Senate. Not since they assumed the majority in January has there been such a lull. During the three weeks, Congressional approval ratings have fallen, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she knew why.
�It�s the war, I believe so, it�s the war,� Ms. Pelosi said in a brief interview on Wednesday. �In terms of the issue that the American people want to have resolved, the war is three or four times higher than any other issue.�
Some Democrats argue that it is high time for the party to turn its attention to domestic issues � energy legislation, immigration overhaul and lobbying reform � to allay concerns that Democrats have not achieved enough significant accomplishments during the first six months of their majority. But other Democrats are demanding a return to the Iraq debate, which Mr. Reid has now pledged to do this month.
The proposals will not be new. Rather, Democrats intend to reprise at least four ideas when the Senate considers the Defense Department policy bill: a measure to reverse the authorization for the Iraq war, set a deadline for troop withdrawal, block money for major combat operations after March 31, 2008, and increase readiness requirements for troops to be sent back to Iraq. �On Iraq,� Mr. Reid said, �we�re going to hold the president�s feet to the fire.�
Democratic Congressional leaders have been stung by the decline in Congressional job approval ratings.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg nationwide telephone poll released this week found that 27 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job, while 65 percent disapprove. And 29 percent of the more than 1,100 poll respondents, all registered voters, said Democrats were working to change how government is run, compared to 63 percent who said Democrats are governing in a business-as-usual manner. The margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points.
Ms. Pelosi said it had been difficult to convince some Democrats that despite their majority, they are limited in how they can change the president�s Iraq policy.
�Some Democrats understand that we don�t have the signature and we can only do so much,� she said. �Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them, being very unhappy that we have not been able to bring the war to an end.�
With September being highlighted as a critical review period for Iraq policy � Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander, is to report to Congress on the progress of the current troop buildup � Democratic leaders had initially hoped to tackle their domestic priorities in late spring and early summer. But on Wednesday, Democratic leaders said they would not wait.
�The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy,� Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid wrote Wednesday in a letter to the White House.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic conference, said Democrats could not be drawn into focusing solely on Iraq. �We have to do Iraq and change the priorities of Washington,� he said. �You can�t become a one-trick pony.�
The war has been the underlying theme of the new Democratic Congress, with barely a week going by without legislators embroiling themselves in committee hearings, a floor debate or symbolic resolutions for and against the war. Democrats have walked a careful line, trying to keep their criticism alive, but lowering expectations that they alone can influence war policy.
The month of June, though, has so far unfolded with barely a word being uttered about Iraq. And lawmakers said they were hearing about it.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who was elected last fall, said constituents were seeking reassurance that Democratic efforts to challenge the administration have not fallen off. She said voters had little interest in being schooled in the intricate rules of the Senate, where 60 votes are required for debate to proceed on legislation.
�I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, �Well, we need 60 votes,� � she said. �People are dying over there, so that isn�t always helpful.�
While Congress must accomplish domestic priorities, she said, Iraq remains the chief issue for most voters. �I think that�s one of the things we�ve struggled with, is finding that balance,� she said, welcoming the news that the Senate intends to revive the debate before month�s end. �It�s very important to me. I don�t want to go home until we do it.�
WASHINGTON, June 13 � President Bush had barely left the Capitol after immigration talks there on Tuesday when Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, walked onto the Senate floor to call for a moment of silence. It was time, Mr. Reid said, to pay tribute to American soldiers in Iraq as their death toll reached 3,500.
A short time earlier, Mr. Reid convened a conference call with liberal bloggers, offering assurances that Democrats would revive debate over the Iraq war. And he pledged to revive it soon, ending the silence that followed the White House�s outmaneuvering of Democrats last month to win more money for the war without a timeline to end it.
�They�ve been driving this debate very well,� Mr. Reid said later, speaking of the bloggers who have been pushing for Congress to end the war. �I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high.�
It has been nearly three weeks since Democrats have held a formal Iraq debate or voted on an Iraq proposal in the House or Senate. Not since they assumed the majority in January has there been such a lull. During the three weeks, Congressional approval ratings have fallen, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she knew why.
�It�s the war, I believe so, it�s the war,� Ms. Pelosi said in a brief interview on Wednesday. �In terms of the issue that the American people want to have resolved, the war is three or four times higher than any other issue.�
Some Democrats argue that it is high time for the party to turn its attention to domestic issues � energy legislation, immigration overhaul and lobbying reform � to allay concerns that Democrats have not achieved enough significant accomplishments during the first six months of their majority. But other Democrats are demanding a return to the Iraq debate, which Mr. Reid has now pledged to do this month.
The proposals will not be new. Rather, Democrats intend to reprise at least four ideas when the Senate considers the Defense Department policy bill: a measure to reverse the authorization for the Iraq war, set a deadline for troop withdrawal, block money for major combat operations after March 31, 2008, and increase readiness requirements for troops to be sent back to Iraq. �On Iraq,� Mr. Reid said, �we�re going to hold the president�s feet to the fire.�
Democratic Congressional leaders have been stung by the decline in Congressional job approval ratings.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg nationwide telephone poll released this week found that 27 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job, while 65 percent disapprove. And 29 percent of the more than 1,100 poll respondents, all registered voters, said Democrats were working to change how government is run, compared to 63 percent who said Democrats are governing in a business-as-usual manner. The margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points.
Ms. Pelosi said it had been difficult to convince some Democrats that despite their majority, they are limited in how they can change the president�s Iraq policy.
�Some Democrats understand that we don�t have the signature and we can only do so much,� she said. �Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them, being very unhappy that we have not been able to bring the war to an end.�
With September being highlighted as a critical review period for Iraq policy � Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander, is to report to Congress on the progress of the current troop buildup � Democratic leaders had initially hoped to tackle their domestic priorities in late spring and early summer. But on Wednesday, Democratic leaders said they would not wait.
�The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy,� Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid wrote Wednesday in a letter to the White House.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic conference, said Democrats could not be drawn into focusing solely on Iraq. �We have to do Iraq and change the priorities of Washington,� he said. �You can�t become a one-trick pony.�
The war has been the underlying theme of the new Democratic Congress, with barely a week going by without legislators embroiling themselves in committee hearings, a floor debate or symbolic resolutions for and against the war. Democrats have walked a careful line, trying to keep their criticism alive, but lowering expectations that they alone can influence war policy.
The month of June, though, has so far unfolded with barely a word being uttered about Iraq. And lawmakers said they were hearing about it.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who was elected last fall, said constituents were seeking reassurance that Democratic efforts to challenge the administration have not fallen off. She said voters had little interest in being schooled in the intricate rules of the Senate, where 60 votes are required for debate to proceed on legislation.
�I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, �Well, we need 60 votes,� � she said. �People are dying over there, so that isn�t always helpful.�
While Congress must accomplish domestic priorities, she said, Iraq remains the chief issue for most voters. �I think that�s one of the things we�ve struggled with, is finding that balance,� she said, welcoming the news that the Senate intends to revive the debate before month�s end. �It�s very important to me. I don�t want to go home until we do it.�
more...
Macaca
11-16 08:35 AM
Pelosi: War, Immigration Hurt Public Approval of Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111501631.html) Speaker Says Clinton Can 'Hold Her Own' By David S. Broder and Chris Cillizza | Washington Post Staff Writers, November 15, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today blamed Congress' failure to bring an end to the war in Iraq and deal effectively with the reform of immigration laws as the primary causes of the institution's near-record low approval ratings.
In an interview at the U.S. Capitol, Pelosi said the Democratic takeover of Congress had raised expectations on action to end the conflict in Iraq, and that the Senate's initial willingness to tackle immigration reform followed by its failure to do so left the American public disappointed in Congress.
The House on Wednesday night passed spending legislation that sought to tie funding for the Iraq war to hard deadlines for beginning troop withdrawals, a proposal that has little hope of passage in the Senate.
"People thought it was a problem that could be solved and when it didn't happen I think it was a big disappointment," she said. "Usually those low numbers relate to expectations and there were high expectations" on both Iraq and immigration.
Pelosi made her comments in an interview for washingtonpost.com's "PostTalk" program (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/11/15/VI2007111501443.html?hpid=topnews), just hours before seven of her party's presidential candidates are scheduled to gather in Las Vegas for a televised debate.
Pelosi said that the heavy wave of criticism directed at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in recent days stemmed from her status as the frontrunner, not as the lone woman in the race. "I believe that any 'picking on' ... [of] Senator Clinton has to do with her being a frontrunner," she said. "Frontrunners always have to undergo that."
Pelosi, who had a chance to closely evaluate six of the candidates at last weekend's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101732.html), said that she saw up close that night that Clinton can "hold her own."
Discussing her own rise to the speakership, Pelosi said she did little to emphasize her gender in lining support within the caucus. "The last thing I could have said to any of my colleagues would have been: 'Vote for me because we need a woman in the leadership.'"
On Wednesday night, the House narrowly passed a measure -- 218 to 203 -- that would tie funding for the Iraq war to a specific redeployment plan for the troops in the country.
Pelosi cast the Bush administration's plan to draw down 30,000 American troops from the country as "inadequate," arguing that such a proposal would leave more soldiers in Iraq next year than were there in November 2006.
Citing a story in Thursday's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402524.html), Pelosi said that leading U.S. generals have concluded that the stubbornness of the Shiite government in Iraq is causing more problems than al Qaeda or other insurgent groups. "The government is not taking political steps," said Pelosi.
While Pelosi said she hoped the House action would help move the debate forward, she acknowledged that Senate action on the bill was unlikely.
Pelosi sounded a conciliatory note on the current spending showdown with the White House but repeatedly referenced the President's much larger requests for Iraq funding when discussing Democratic priorities like children's health insurance and medical research.
She did, however, express confidence that a deal would be reached with the president on the remaining appropriations bills -- dismissing the possibility of a repeat of the 1995-1996 government shutdown that left House Republicans deflated and President Clinton triumphant.
While admitting that she must do a better job at ensuring the American people are aware of what the Democratic-led House has accomplished in its first 10 months, she expressed confidence that her party's brand was still strong.
She repeatedly cited polling that showed Democrats with a double-digit leads over their Republican counterparts in both specific battleground congressional districts as well as nationally.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today blamed Congress' failure to bring an end to the war in Iraq and deal effectively with the reform of immigration laws as the primary causes of the institution's near-record low approval ratings.
In an interview at the U.S. Capitol, Pelosi said the Democratic takeover of Congress had raised expectations on action to end the conflict in Iraq, and that the Senate's initial willingness to tackle immigration reform followed by its failure to do so left the American public disappointed in Congress.
The House on Wednesday night passed spending legislation that sought to tie funding for the Iraq war to hard deadlines for beginning troop withdrawals, a proposal that has little hope of passage in the Senate.
"People thought it was a problem that could be solved and when it didn't happen I think it was a big disappointment," she said. "Usually those low numbers relate to expectations and there were high expectations" on both Iraq and immigration.
Pelosi made her comments in an interview for washingtonpost.com's "PostTalk" program (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/11/15/VI2007111501443.html?hpid=topnews), just hours before seven of her party's presidential candidates are scheduled to gather in Las Vegas for a televised debate.
Pelosi said that the heavy wave of criticism directed at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in recent days stemmed from her status as the frontrunner, not as the lone woman in the race. "I believe that any 'picking on' ... [of] Senator Clinton has to do with her being a frontrunner," she said. "Frontrunners always have to undergo that."
Pelosi, who had a chance to closely evaluate six of the candidates at last weekend's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101732.html), said that she saw up close that night that Clinton can "hold her own."
Discussing her own rise to the speakership, Pelosi said she did little to emphasize her gender in lining support within the caucus. "The last thing I could have said to any of my colleagues would have been: 'Vote for me because we need a woman in the leadership.'"
On Wednesday night, the House narrowly passed a measure -- 218 to 203 -- that would tie funding for the Iraq war to a specific redeployment plan for the troops in the country.
Pelosi cast the Bush administration's plan to draw down 30,000 American troops from the country as "inadequate," arguing that such a proposal would leave more soldiers in Iraq next year than were there in November 2006.
Citing a story in Thursday's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402524.html), Pelosi said that leading U.S. generals have concluded that the stubbornness of the Shiite government in Iraq is causing more problems than al Qaeda or other insurgent groups. "The government is not taking political steps," said Pelosi.
While Pelosi said she hoped the House action would help move the debate forward, she acknowledged that Senate action on the bill was unlikely.
Pelosi sounded a conciliatory note on the current spending showdown with the White House but repeatedly referenced the President's much larger requests for Iraq funding when discussing Democratic priorities like children's health insurance and medical research.
She did, however, express confidence that a deal would be reached with the president on the remaining appropriations bills -- dismissing the possibility of a repeat of the 1995-1996 government shutdown that left House Republicans deflated and President Clinton triumphant.
While admitting that she must do a better job at ensuring the American people are aware of what the Democratic-led House has accomplished in its first 10 months, she expressed confidence that her party's brand was still strong.
She repeatedly cited polling that showed Democrats with a double-digit leads over their Republican counterparts in both specific battleground congressional districts as well as nationally.
2010 Game Over, Man!
santa123
09-02 07:07 PM
Is there an active IV FL chapter? If so pls provide details.
more...
SlowRoasted
05-01 10:09 PM
pretty nice, needs the alien font though
hair quot;That#39;s it man! Game over man
nish2006
01-28 01:21 PM
Hi,
My employers are considering transfering me to another group company (different name) during the next 1-2 months. My job profile will remain unchanged, but the employer name/address (on paychecks, etc) will be different after the transfer. My I-140 is still pending (filed in Aug 2007 together with I-485 at NSC under EB-3).
I'd greatly appreciate anyone's advice on the following:
a) If I transfer before my I-140 is approved, do I need to notify USCIS in writing? If so, does any specific paperwork need to be filled out? My employers have assured me they will continue to support my I-140/485 under the original company name, for as long as required.
b) If I transfer after approval of I-140 (fingers crossed!), do I need to notify USCIS? Again, is any specific paperwork necessary?
Many thanks in advance.
My employers are considering transfering me to another group company (different name) during the next 1-2 months. My job profile will remain unchanged, but the employer name/address (on paychecks, etc) will be different after the transfer. My I-140 is still pending (filed in Aug 2007 together with I-485 at NSC under EB-3).
I'd greatly appreciate anyone's advice on the following:
a) If I transfer before my I-140 is approved, do I need to notify USCIS in writing? If so, does any specific paperwork need to be filled out? My employers have assured me they will continue to support my I-140/485 under the original company name, for as long as required.
b) If I transfer after approval of I-140 (fingers crossed!), do I need to notify USCIS? Again, is any specific paperwork necessary?
Many thanks in advance.
more...
atlfp
08-11 01:51 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/11/navarrette/index.html
hot Game Over, Man
katharina
10-09 01:18 PM
I am currently in the US for an internship. I would like to change from the J1 Visa to a Tourist Visa. Is this possible? and where will I be able to get information and the forms?
I would appreciate any help
I would appreciate any help
more...
house quot;Game over man! Game over!quot;
silverandre
03-17 11:07 PM
Hello! I went to US to work in a summer/work travel experience under a J1 VISA.
My VISA expired on APR/01/2007 , but I sent a letter to USCIS asking to change my VISA status to B1/B2. The letter just arrived at the USCIS Office on APR/02/2007. I kept working until JUN/15.
In JUN/20/2007 I left US back to my home country and later accessing the USCIS site I figured out that my request was processed and denied.
Now I'm graduated in Business and was hired to work in a big company in NYC, they are requesting me to get another J1 VISA (this time J1 Trainee for a 1,5 year).
I would like to know if this kind of situation generates a BAN, or if I will have any kind of trouble in the interview in the US Embassy.
Thank you so much!
My VISA expired on APR/01/2007 , but I sent a letter to USCIS asking to change my VISA status to B1/B2. The letter just arrived at the USCIS Office on APR/02/2007. I kept working until JUN/15.
In JUN/20/2007 I left US back to my home country and later accessing the USCIS site I figured out that my request was processed and denied.
Now I'm graduated in Business and was hired to work in a big company in NYC, they are requesting me to get another J1 VISA (this time J1 Trainee for a 1,5 year).
I would like to know if this kind of situation generates a BAN, or if I will have any kind of trouble in the interview in the US Embassy.
Thank you so much!
tattoo it#39;s game over man,
karthiknv143
02-07 04:23 PM
Guess its never or may be part of CIR(which is also never):rolleyes:
more...
pictures gAME OVER
![game over man. Game Over, Man! by Catsy [CSF]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vxpq5kckoOlDYHBGFGsruN3B1BhuI_jWPlmxO_PzvHyPag1F5C8npGcM4kwHqb2nSi5sXd-ezvtZRs03ssTJn-b2dRrpRXEMjHm9OIk0-_gMYRVN9M21T-IDBEMirOMVo=s0-d "Game Over, Man! by Catsy [CSF]")
prajwal123
05-27 04:09 PM
Can I work with different employer without my sponsor company knowing about it? I have a EAD and I can change jobs(180 days is over). Now planning to start a company/to work on W2 with new company. I want to use the medical benefits from sponsor company(withought quitting the job).
currently I am on Bench. so parent company not paying anything. I appreciate your responses.
Please let me know any good immigration lawyer in Newjersey (princeton) area.
Thanks
currently I am on Bench. so parent company not paying anything. I appreciate your responses.
Please let me know any good immigration lawyer in Newjersey (princeton) area.
Thanks
dresses game over man
Blog Feeds
07-06 02:40 PM
VIA USCIS
System errors caused a number of Application Support Centers to be overscheduled during the week of July 6-10,
2009. As a result, some applicants may receive cancellation notices for appointments originally scheduled during this
timeframe.
If you do not receive a cancellation notice, please appear at your ASC appointment as scheduled. If you do receive a
cancellation notice, you will soon receive an ASC appointment notice for a new date and time, typically for an
appointment within the next two to four weeks.
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/07/06/information-regarding-application-support-center-appointment-rescheduling--july-6--10-2009.aspx?ref=rss)
System errors caused a number of Application Support Centers to be overscheduled during the week of July 6-10,
2009. As a result, some applicants may receive cancellation notices for appointments originally scheduled during this
timeframe.
If you do not receive a cancellation notice, please appear at your ASC appointment as scheduled. If you do receive a
cancellation notice, you will soon receive an ASC appointment notice for a new date and time, typically for an
appointment within the next two to four weeks.
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/07/06/information-regarding-application-support-center-appointment-rescheduling--july-6--10-2009.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
makeup quot;Game over, man -- game over!quot;
Blog Feeds
05-27 12:40 PM
Antis point to polls showing more Americans support the Arizona bill than oppose it. But other polls - including new ones from ImmigrationWorks USA and Immigration Voice, show these same voters also support - by wide margins - comprehensive immigration reform proposals that contain legalization programs. Is this really a contradictory result? Maybe not. Americans want ACTION on immigration reform rather than maintaining the status quo. Action can mean an SB1070 or something on a broader scale - even if it is called "amnesty." Here are slides outlining the ImmigrationWorks poll. Keep an eye on polling of Republican voters who...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/polls-show-public-wants-action-on-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/polls-show-public-wants-action-on-immigration-reform.html)
girlfriend ALIENS: game over, man game
foobar2001
01-27 12:09 AM
yes, you can add her anytime before the approval of your I485 (3rd stage of the GC process). You havent mentioned EB1/2/3 but if its EB2 or EB3, stage 3 is several years away for you, and you can always add her before you apply for the final stage. Good luck!
hairstyles it8bit: Game Over Man by
joreal
08-25 04:29 PM
hi,
I have approved labor & I-140 with my employer and they filed for my H1B extension. If i would like to change the employer, what is the process i should go through with new employer regarding my GC? will they have to apply labor again for me or can they use this approved labor & I-140 and continue my GC from then so that i will not lose my priority date? If they cannot use my labor, is there any other way to use my priority date.Please advise on how to proceed...
Thanks in advance...
I have approved labor & I-140 with my employer and they filed for my H1B extension. If i would like to change the employer, what is the process i should go through with new employer regarding my GC? will they have to apply labor again for me or can they use this approved labor & I-140 and continue my GC from then so that i will not lose my priority date? If they cannot use my labor, is there any other way to use my priority date.Please advise on how to proceed...
Thanks in advance...
sanju_dba
10-01 12:39 PM
I am guessing it should be OK. if at all it needs redirection they will do it internally. besides you can check in your online case status about the RFE or call NSC if you need.
snowshoe
12-12 07:59 AM
When applying for the third stage you can include applications for spouse and children irrespective of the type of visa they are currently in.
No comments:
Post a Comment