bondgoli007
07-29 02:42 PM
@wizkid...Nice job!! Go on and pile it on the poor sod!
You had already made your point in your initial post to this thread so why rub it in? Is it because you never have faced such a dire situation... if you cannot offer anything constructive atleast shut your trap, don't be such a jerk and let the guy vent!
@uma...I can understand your frustration at this point. Is staying and working in the US very important to you? If so, you can try to workout a solution with your employer where you can work for them in a different country for 1 year and then maybe come back with a new 6 year H1 time. If the economy gets better (and hoping it would), you can perhaps negotiate with them to restart your GC process or at that stage move to another employer. I ask you to think ahead with calm and logic. You will find a solution which you will be happy with in future.
I wish you all the best and Take care!
You had already made your point in your initial post to this thread so why rub it in? Is it because you never have faced such a dire situation... if you cannot offer anything constructive atleast shut your trap, don't be such a jerk and let the guy vent!
@uma...I can understand your frustration at this point. Is staying and working in the US very important to you? If so, you can try to workout a solution with your employer where you can work for them in a different country for 1 year and then maybe come back with a new 6 year H1 time. If the economy gets better (and hoping it would), you can perhaps negotiate with them to restart your GC process or at that stage move to another employer. I ask you to think ahead with calm and logic. You will find a solution which you will be happy with in future.
I wish you all the best and Take care!
wallpaper Jasmine Villegas (Musician)
engineer
06-12 08:18 PM
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00008032&channel=civic%20center.
note: I wrote to editors at chowk.com to add in foot note that is press release from Immigrationvoice.com.
Please go there and interact to get more people aware of this issue.
Chowk is read by many Southeast Asian people....
For those who don't know Chowk.com here is an excerpt from their website:
"Chowk's Success
Ideas (the written word). Identities (the members). Interactions (the discussion). Over 3500 published articles, 20,000 registered members, 300,000 moderated discussions, and innumerable forum style impromptu responses. "
note: I wrote to editors at chowk.com to add in foot note that is press release from Immigrationvoice.com.
Please go there and interact to get more people aware of this issue.
Chowk is read by many Southeast Asian people....
For those who don't know Chowk.com here is an excerpt from their website:
"Chowk's Success
Ideas (the written word). Identities (the members). Interactions (the discussion). Over 3500 published articles, 20,000 registered members, 300,000 moderated discussions, and innumerable forum style impromptu responses. "
varshadas
01-24 10:33 PM
Let us have a conf call on 01/27/07 at 10.00 AM. I will post the conference details soon.
Thanks,
Varsha
Thanks,
Varsha
2011 Jasmine Villegas
ilikekilo
03-10 12:45 AM
what a shame!!!!!!!!1 Bleep bleep!!!
more...
rajuseattle
07-14 08:23 PM
ajthakur,
dont worry about LUD on 07/13, that was a generic update.
My wife's approved I-539 (H-4) from 2005 received LUD on 07/13, so that's nothing to do with your current RFE situation.
I think you are scared of your past employer or you are worrying too much, god knows what he has asked you to do which you dont want to mention on this forum, but if he has threatened you or if he is doing some illegal activities you have the protection under AC-21 for reporting such employers to USCIS and DoL. Please read the USCIS (Neufield) Memo published in May 2008.
Please let us know whats going on with your ex-employer, if he is trying to get some money from you or abusing you, you can very well report him to DoL and you will be fine under the new AC-21 memo which protects such employees who are whistle blowers and you are fully protected under US laws.
Lot of the times desi blood suckers abuse their employees and this is the reason USCIS came up with whistle blower protection under AC-21. your competent attorney can use this special provision and argue with USCIS why you were forced to change employment after filing your I-485 back in July 2007 and you switch the job under AC-21 provisions in August 2007.
dont worry too much, try preparing your AC-21 letter and Employment verification letter to answer the RFE.
dont worry about LUD on 07/13, that was a generic update.
My wife's approved I-539 (H-4) from 2005 received LUD on 07/13, so that's nothing to do with your current RFE situation.
I think you are scared of your past employer or you are worrying too much, god knows what he has asked you to do which you dont want to mention on this forum, but if he has threatened you or if he is doing some illegal activities you have the protection under AC-21 for reporting such employers to USCIS and DoL. Please read the USCIS (Neufield) Memo published in May 2008.
Please let us know whats going on with your ex-employer, if he is trying to get some money from you or abusing you, you can very well report him to DoL and you will be fine under the new AC-21 memo which protects such employees who are whistle blowers and you are fully protected under US laws.
Lot of the times desi blood suckers abuse their employees and this is the reason USCIS came up with whistle blower protection under AC-21. your competent attorney can use this special provision and argue with USCIS why you were forced to change employment after filing your I-485 back in July 2007 and you switch the job under AC-21 provisions in August 2007.
dont worry too much, try preparing your AC-21 letter and Employment verification letter to answer the RFE.
mi2
11-17 04:57 PM
I don't care if the company is kind enought or not. Damn it .....it's my life and I want to control my own destiny.... a green card , red card, yellow card cannot make me beg anybody !! I have decided that I will keep switching on extensions and keep getting three extensions ....
If CIR / SKLIL happens , it would just be a bonus. But I will definitely help IV financially and morally all the time.....
EVERYONE SHOULD CONTRIBUTE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE WIN OR LOSE IT DOESN'T MATTER ....... WHAT MATTER THE MOST IS THAT WE GAVE OUR BEST SHOT AT IT.... AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU DON'T WANT TO FEEL THAT U DIDN'T TRY ENOUGH TO KILL THE CROCODILE. !!
I URGE THE MEMBERS TO KEEP CONTRIBUTIING TO IV.... NUMBERUSA HAS TON OF MONEY TO PUSH THEIR SIDE.....
Well said anurakt! I did the same - recently changed my job and restarted the process. At the end of the day better prof. experience will give value add - not an immigration status.
Having said that - I support IV and stand by it. I admire the attitude and am proud to be a part of the group. The immigration situation is very frustating but I'll not allow it to 'control' me.
Cheers!
If CIR / SKLIL happens , it would just be a bonus. But I will definitely help IV financially and morally all the time.....
EVERYONE SHOULD CONTRIBUTE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE WIN OR LOSE IT DOESN'T MATTER ....... WHAT MATTER THE MOST IS THAT WE GAVE OUR BEST SHOT AT IT.... AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU DON'T WANT TO FEEL THAT U DIDN'T TRY ENOUGH TO KILL THE CROCODILE. !!
I URGE THE MEMBERS TO KEEP CONTRIBUTIING TO IV.... NUMBERUSA HAS TON OF MONEY TO PUSH THEIR SIDE.....
Well said anurakt! I did the same - recently changed my job and restarted the process. At the end of the day better prof. experience will give value add - not an immigration status.
Having said that - I support IV and stand by it. I admire the attitude and am proud to be a part of the group. The immigration situation is very frustating but I'll not allow it to 'control' me.
Cheers!
more...
delax
07-14 07:17 PM
Murthy will never mention Immigrationvoice or our effort on her website.
Murthy will always want to take credit for everything good even if she has no hand in it. She tried to take credit for the June bulletin. But she vanished when the July fiasco happened. Why did she not take credit for the July fiasco if she was so close to DOS and was so easily able to influence the June bulletin. It is publicity stunt of these lawyers and their websites to try to show off how influencial they are so that their clients are simply awed by them and give dollars to them as fees.
I want to ask Murthy this question-- How much money has she given to Immigrationvoice till now?
If she has not given any money, then it means she does not care about immigrants and this cause. It means she wants retrogression to stay so that she can make quick bucks off it.
My friend - I think I need to send you a flower :)
To a few of my misguided friends who seem to not understand the distinction between a lobbying outfit whose goal is to change existing law to better suit reality and a law firm whose goal is to work within existing law. As self-proclaimed proponents of "Gandhigiri" - I see its principles not being applied when dealing with each other. Is Gandhigiri meant only to show USCIS. Would the Mahatma have said the same things mentioned above before asking himself a few questions. I dont think we can question the motives and intention of anybody before fully knowing the facts. As a client of Murthy Law Firm here is a fact:
On her call last week for her clients, she mentioned that the Murthy Law Firm is one of the biggest financial contributor to AILF - who by the way are ready to file the class action lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successfull and given AILF's funding source - will you exclude yourself from the potential benefit because Murthy's funds were used to support the litigation - who's piggybacking now.
Again - Its not one against the other - Please bear in mind the DUE PROCESS of LAW has been violated by USCIS resulting in a curtailment of your substantive rights (EAD, Parole, AC21 etc). I would not care who fights on my behalf so long as the outcome is to correct the earlier mistake.
If you feel that she does not work for immigrants you have no locus standi to avail of ANY BENEFIT from the lawsuit and as a true proponent of "Gandhigiri" you should VOLUNTARILY exclude yourself from any such potential benefit.
I know the Mahatma would have done the same thing.
Murthy will always want to take credit for everything good even if she has no hand in it. She tried to take credit for the June bulletin. But she vanished when the July fiasco happened. Why did she not take credit for the July fiasco if she was so close to DOS and was so easily able to influence the June bulletin. It is publicity stunt of these lawyers and their websites to try to show off how influencial they are so that their clients are simply awed by them and give dollars to them as fees.
I want to ask Murthy this question-- How much money has she given to Immigrationvoice till now?
If she has not given any money, then it means she does not care about immigrants and this cause. It means she wants retrogression to stay so that she can make quick bucks off it.
My friend - I think I need to send you a flower :)
To a few of my misguided friends who seem to not understand the distinction between a lobbying outfit whose goal is to change existing law to better suit reality and a law firm whose goal is to work within existing law. As self-proclaimed proponents of "Gandhigiri" - I see its principles not being applied when dealing with each other. Is Gandhigiri meant only to show USCIS. Would the Mahatma have said the same things mentioned above before asking himself a few questions. I dont think we can question the motives and intention of anybody before fully knowing the facts. As a client of Murthy Law Firm here is a fact:
On her call last week for her clients, she mentioned that the Murthy Law Firm is one of the biggest financial contributor to AILF - who by the way are ready to file the class action lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successfull and given AILF's funding source - will you exclude yourself from the potential benefit because Murthy's funds were used to support the litigation - who's piggybacking now.
Again - Its not one against the other - Please bear in mind the DUE PROCESS of LAW has been violated by USCIS resulting in a curtailment of your substantive rights (EAD, Parole, AC21 etc). I would not care who fights on my behalf so long as the outcome is to correct the earlier mistake.
If you feel that she does not work for immigrants you have no locus standi to avail of ANY BENEFIT from the lawsuit and as a true proponent of "Gandhigiri" you should VOLUNTARILY exclude yourself from any such potential benefit.
I know the Mahatma would have done the same thing.
2010 jasmine villegas. and Jasmine
immig4me
02-11 08:57 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\
more...
gimme_GC2006
04-07 06:45 PM
first of all cut this BS. citizens and GC holders have different queues at POE and all visa people have different queues.how the hell ur friends heard the officers questions.do they have snake ears or what.use ur common sense.
i came recently on march 20th and how come i did not see when there were 50 desis in the visa's queues.stop these rumours.
i went to sbi when i was in india. that sbi manager came to know this and he was telling about that.i thought it might be a rumour but it still gave me couple of sleepless nights.see how fast this BS is spreading.
Well..you cut your BS first..just because Its not first hand doesnt mean it is unreal..just because I posted on IV doesnt mean I expected IV to take up this case..just b'coz sucker like you saw two different lanes in the airport doesnt mean all airports are like that..I posted my experience in the airport I travelled thru..I dont have to prove to morons like you.
You dont need to be best and brightest to tell me that Airports have different lanes..Oh..yeah...how will I know..I sneaked through Texas border...I never said all ppl stand in the same lane..I said, queues are different but unless you are deaf to your a** you can hear most of the conversation..atleast I did..I dont care if you didnt in your case?
You believe or dont believe I give a rats a**..this is a free forum..I posted what a PERSON told me directly..I never read in the rules that I have to post along with a video recording of my conversation.
huh... _ _ ^ _ _ :cool:
i came recently on march 20th and how come i did not see when there were 50 desis in the visa's queues.stop these rumours.
i went to sbi when i was in india. that sbi manager came to know this and he was telling about that.i thought it might be a rumour but it still gave me couple of sleepless nights.see how fast this BS is spreading.
Well..you cut your BS first..just because Its not first hand doesnt mean it is unreal..just because I posted on IV doesnt mean I expected IV to take up this case..just b'coz sucker like you saw two different lanes in the airport doesnt mean all airports are like that..I posted my experience in the airport I travelled thru..I dont have to prove to morons like you.
You dont need to be best and brightest to tell me that Airports have different lanes..Oh..yeah...how will I know..I sneaked through Texas border...I never said all ppl stand in the same lane..I said, queues are different but unless you are deaf to your a** you can hear most of the conversation..atleast I did..I dont care if you didnt in your case?
You believe or dont believe I give a rats a**..this is a free forum..I posted what a PERSON told me directly..I never read in the rules that I have to post along with a video recording of my conversation.
huh... _ _ ^ _ _ :cool:
hair Jasmine Villegas
sat0207
04-27 09:18 AM
Hey read this link very informative http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/factsheets/security_checks_42506.pdf
more...
gcdreamer05
03-19 07:29 AM
This is the power of Immigration Voice. Not everyone has the knowledge of all these situations, so we need to gain knowledge from the past experience of others.
I am sure thread's like this will help a lot of people who have plans to join few Full Time Employees who promise but cannot keep it up.
Please continue to share...
I am sure thread's like this will help a lot of people who have plans to join few Full Time Employees who promise but cannot keep it up.
Please continue to share...
hot 16 year old Jasmine Villegas
10dulkar
03-16 01:07 PM
dont "warn" me..........you think i give a damn about your "warning"??
the right to speak is MINE. all YOU can do from your high horse is ban me from the forum.
i really dont care, i still think interfilers and substituters should get what they derserve. every single bit of it. may they really, truly, go to hell, and stay there indefinitely.
and NO, dont preach to me about trying to "fix" the system. the agenda here is mostly EB3, and mostly Indian, at best. the multitudes of diploma holders get pissed when i call them out for what they are...........why are THEY so sensitive and ashamed???
i have a RIGHT to be in the proper EB queue, which i EARNED, and did not employ cheap desi-employer tricks and other games to get into........if that does not answer your doubts my friend, then as i said earlier, ban me..........i dont really care either way.
i dont advertise what i have done or can do for IV. somehow, that is a little demeaning. sort of like going to a temple and offering some money and then coming out and proclaiming to one and all how generous a give you are....
or his posts.... they are just inflaming you to reply.... please don't......
the right to speak is MINE. all YOU can do from your high horse is ban me from the forum.
i really dont care, i still think interfilers and substituters should get what they derserve. every single bit of it. may they really, truly, go to hell, and stay there indefinitely.
and NO, dont preach to me about trying to "fix" the system. the agenda here is mostly EB3, and mostly Indian, at best. the multitudes of diploma holders get pissed when i call them out for what they are...........why are THEY so sensitive and ashamed???
i have a RIGHT to be in the proper EB queue, which i EARNED, and did not employ cheap desi-employer tricks and other games to get into........if that does not answer your doubts my friend, then as i said earlier, ban me..........i dont really care either way.
i dont advertise what i have done or can do for IV. somehow, that is a little demeaning. sort of like going to a temple and offering some money and then coming out and proclaiming to one and all how generous a give you are....
or his posts.... they are just inflaming you to reply.... please don't......
more...
house Jasmine Villegas : All These
PresidentO
02-11 01:23 PM
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
You rock dude! Am I the only one to remember how visa numbers spill between FB and EB every other year? (or) Am I hallucinating?
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
You rock dude! Am I the only one to remember how visa numbers spill between FB and EB every other year? (or) Am I hallucinating?
tattoo Jasmine Villegas Fan cl…
rajuseattle
07-14 07:14 PM
ajthakur,
U r covered under AC-21 if I-140 is not revoked by your previous employer.
Be truthful to USCIS and using a very good attorney firm drat AC-21 and Employment verification letter to USCIS. Since your PD is current chances are after reviewing the new employment letter USCIS might approve your case.
Please dont waste time in on this forum, instead spend some money to consult Rajeev Khanna or Sheela Murthy, it is worth spending every penny on the advice and their services for invoking AC-21.
Per your RFE notice it looks like, USCIS is only interested in verifying your current employment in the similar profession. good employment verification letter and AC-21 draft is good to save your GC.
RFE might have triggered due to previous H1B transfer, it has nothing to do with your employer revoking I-140. Trust me lot of desi consulting companies dont want to take any "Panga" with USCIS and 99% of the time they just ignore employees leaving them. So dont worry, dial in Murthy or Khanna consulting services and see what's their take on your case. If you are getting any help from new Employer's attorney that will be free of cost to you.
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
U r covered under AC-21 if I-140 is not revoked by your previous employer.
Be truthful to USCIS and using a very good attorney firm drat AC-21 and Employment verification letter to USCIS. Since your PD is current chances are after reviewing the new employment letter USCIS might approve your case.
Please dont waste time in on this forum, instead spend some money to consult Rajeev Khanna or Sheela Murthy, it is worth spending every penny on the advice and their services for invoking AC-21.
Per your RFE notice it looks like, USCIS is only interested in verifying your current employment in the similar profession. good employment verification letter and AC-21 draft is good to save your GC.
RFE might have triggered due to previous H1B transfer, it has nothing to do with your employer revoking I-140. Trust me lot of desi consulting companies dont want to take any "Panga" with USCIS and 99% of the time they just ignore employees leaving them. So dont worry, dial in Murthy or Khanna consulting services and see what's their take on your case. If you are getting any help from new Employer's attorney that will be free of cost to you.
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
more...
pictures Jasmine-V-jasmine-villegas-
sammas
07-12 04:01 PM
F. DETERMINATION OF THE NUMERICAL LIMITS ON IMMIGRANTS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT (INA)
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
dresses Jasmine Villegas#39; SIS episode
Ramba
07-14 10:02 PM
--
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
more...
makeup Her name is Jasmine Villegas,
vivekjay
10-20 02:23 PM
He doesn't compare with Mccain on any of the issues except being able to talk. He spends more money running negative ads than Mccain. Then he says, john, 100% of your ads are negative where as only 50% of mine are negative. Which is true but if you dig further Mccain is spending 1bout 50Mil on negative ads where as Obama is spending 80Mil. Though he is correct in his percentages statement,is he really correct?
Any time any question is raised , call them slimy is another strategy of Obama. He did it with Clintons and he is doing with Mccain.
Atleast Obama's attack adds are based on policies and not personal attacks. I lost all respect for McCain for his campaign stooping so low and after his VP pick. My god what was he thinking?
Democrats are poised to increase their majority in both houses and McCain is pretty much going to have a hard time pushing his agenda regarding a lot of issues. I dont want another lame duck president.
Any time any question is raised , call them slimy is another strategy of Obama. He did it with Clintons and he is doing with Mccain.
Atleast Obama's attack adds are based on policies and not personal attacks. I lost all respect for McCain for his campaign stooping so low and after his VP pick. My god what was he thinking?
Democrats are poised to increase their majority in both houses and McCain is pretty much going to have a hard time pushing his agenda regarding a lot of issues. I dont want another lame duck president.
girlfriend jasmine villegas
akilhere
10-11 12:44 PM
Received email about change in status to 'Your Case Status: Request for Evidence Response Review'. USCIS should have received it yesterday and today it changed to response review.
RFE email: Sept 10, 2010
RFE received by attorney: Sept 21, 2010 [Civil Surgeon was not in current list of authorised civil surgeon + x-ray report was missing]
Reponse to RFE sent on : Oct 05, 2010 via USPS
Soft LUD/email: Oct 07, 2010 @10.30PM PST [Your Case Status: Request for Evidence Response Review]
feedfront
I got an RFE on my 485 on Oct 6th. But I haven't received the letter yet. But, since my TB test turned positive and I had to take an X-ray, I'm wondering if I would get the same RFE on my 485 too. I haven't changed employers nor had any H1B breaks in my 12 year stint here. So, I'm wondering if it would be the same RFE as yours.
In case of an X-Ray missing, couldn't we contact the doctor's office where we did our tests and ask them to mail it again? Or should we do it once again now? I did my tests in 2004, so I'm not even sure if they have copies of my X-rays with them.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
RFE email: Sept 10, 2010
RFE received by attorney: Sept 21, 2010 [Civil Surgeon was not in current list of authorised civil surgeon + x-ray report was missing]
Reponse to RFE sent on : Oct 05, 2010 via USPS
Soft LUD/email: Oct 07, 2010 @10.30PM PST [Your Case Status: Request for Evidence Response Review]
feedfront
I got an RFE on my 485 on Oct 6th. But I haven't received the letter yet. But, since my TB test turned positive and I had to take an X-ray, I'm wondering if I would get the same RFE on my 485 too. I haven't changed employers nor had any H1B breaks in my 12 year stint here. So, I'm wondering if it would be the same RFE as yours.
In case of an X-Ray missing, couldn't we contact the doctor's office where we did our tests and ask them to mail it again? Or should we do it once again now? I did my tests in 2004, so I'm not even sure if they have copies of my X-rays with them.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
hairstyles Jasmine Villegas Jeepney Music
gsc999
04-20 05:23 PM
I have already called seven members who have been active lately. I don't have other phone numbers. If you still need people to call. Let me know. You can PM me
looivy
11-11 09:42 AM
IV please mobilize resources for Lame Duck.
TexDBoy
09-10 01:20 PM
I just see the eagle ... it should have started already ...
No comments:
Post a Comment