gc_bulgaria
02-23 08:38 PM
If we're forced to see the glass half full, delayed 140 processing may actually be good for some people who are about to be laid off and whose 140 is on shaky grounds. It might just buy'em some more time to switch employers and figure out alternatives.
Maverick_2008
Ummm, how exactly is delayed I 140 good if they are about to be laid off? To be able to use AC21 these guys need need their I 140 approved and have worked for the employer 6 months after receipt date.
I don't see the logic in your statement.
Maverick_2008
Ummm, how exactly is delayed I 140 good if they are about to be laid off? To be able to use AC21 these guys need need their I 140 approved and have worked for the employer 6 months after receipt date.
I don't see the logic in your statement.
wallpaper The Smiths Home
americandesi
07-05 04:50 PM
I have got my canadian PR approval for me and my wife and have sent the passports to the Canadian Consulate in NYC for immigrant visa stamping. To get my PR card I have to land in Canada before Dec 19, 2007 when the visa expires.
I have not traveled outside the US after I got my H1B and am planning to go to Canada for stamping H1B for me H4 for my wife.
Would there be any problem for me to land in Canada since I will not be landing there with the intention to settle but will return after getting my H1B stamped in a couple of days.
Anyone gone through my kind of situation before. Please send me a PM.
I am concerend about being denied entry in Canada and then I will be nowhere because I cannot return to US without a vaid H1B stamp.
Why do you think you would be denied entry in canada? You are legal to enter Canada with your PR approval. There is no question of "intent" when you are already approved for permanent residency.
I have not traveled outside the US after I got my H1B and am planning to go to Canada for stamping H1B for me H4 for my wife.
Would there be any problem for me to land in Canada since I will not be landing there with the intention to settle but will return after getting my H1B stamped in a couple of days.
Anyone gone through my kind of situation before. Please send me a PM.
I am concerend about being denied entry in Canada and then I will be nowhere because I cannot return to US without a vaid H1B stamp.
Why do you think you would be denied entry in canada? You are legal to enter Canada with your PR approval. There is no question of "intent" when you are already approved for permanent residency.
mbartosik
11-09 05:27 PM
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bapio&btnG=Search+News
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_docs_win_legal_battle_in_UK/articleshow/2530784.cms
Good for them!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_docs_win_legal_battle_in_UK/articleshow/2530784.cms
Good for them!
2011 Steven Morrissey of The Smiths
santb1975
01-28 09:46 PM
you are awesome
Tomorrow evening, can you rise to the occasion???
Tomorrow evening, can you rise to the occasion???
more...
mhathi
01-08 09:08 AM
I agree with GC007. I have just been through a similar situation. My previous stamp was expiring on jan 21 07 and had gotten an extension upto 20010. I made trip to India this past december (2006) and was told by my lawyer to get the new visa stamped in India. This is because the new I-94 that you get with the extension has to be surrendered when you leave the country and on reentry you get a new I-94. That will be only valid upto the date stamped on ur passport and there is a rule that with regard to I-94, the last action takes precedence on previous actions.
This was for my H1 and my Spouse's H4 visa.
This was for my H1 and my Spouse's H4 visa.
saileshdude
07-21 09:44 PM
You actually have active TB? Or you are saying your TB skin test came out positive as you had BCG?
If you had given BCG and your skin test came positive, that's very normal. If your doctor here wants to treat you because your skin test came positive although your chest x-ray is clear, then you probably should change your doctor.
mhtanim,
My skin test was positive but chest x-ray was negative. As far as changing the doctor goes, this doctor is actually the USCIS doctor who I went to during last July 2007 fiasco. At that time of rush I did not bother on what he wrote on the medical forms. Even though I had negative x-ray , he wrote I need to follow up with my primary care for INH treatment.
Also with regards to BCG vaccine , the skin test comes positive only within 10 years after BCG is given. If you still have a reaction after 10 years then that means that you have a passive TB and it is recommended that you get it treated. I had a long conversation with an Infectious Disease specialist and he mentioned that there is no urgency to start the treatment because of age factor. So if there is a doctor you know who says that you do not need to be treated even after 10 years of taking the BCG , then probably you should change your doctor for the sake of your own health.
If you had given BCG and your skin test came positive, that's very normal. If your doctor here wants to treat you because your skin test came positive although your chest x-ray is clear, then you probably should change your doctor.
mhtanim,
My skin test was positive but chest x-ray was negative. As far as changing the doctor goes, this doctor is actually the USCIS doctor who I went to during last July 2007 fiasco. At that time of rush I did not bother on what he wrote on the medical forms. Even though I had negative x-ray , he wrote I need to follow up with my primary care for INH treatment.
Also with regards to BCG vaccine , the skin test comes positive only within 10 years after BCG is given. If you still have a reaction after 10 years then that means that you have a passive TB and it is recommended that you get it treated. I had a long conversation with an Infectious Disease specialist and he mentioned that there is no urgency to start the treatment because of age factor. So if there is a doctor you know who says that you do not need to be treated even after 10 years of taking the BCG , then probably you should change your doctor for the sake of your own health.
more...
GCNirvana007
04-08 04:50 PM
Also, did you know we have some action items? and did you notice some people donate time and money?
Winner - Thanks for the recommendation. You should have stopped right there. I ask questions to understand how it functions and whats going on. If you dont know the answer. Just be quiet. Stop making smartass comments. I dont have time go back and forth on it.
Winner - Thanks for the recommendation. You should have stopped right there. I ask questions to understand how it functions and whats going on. If you dont know the answer. Just be quiet. Stop making smartass comments. I dont have time go back and forth on it.
2010 morrissey smiths. obsessed
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
sunny1000
04-20 03:09 PM
I-94 also does not have the date written
In that case, here is the relevant Q&A in the www.cbp.gov website. Hope it helps:
Q: How do I correct an Arrival-Departure Record reflecting an incorrect admission classification, biographical information or period of admission?
A: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will review and issue the necessary documents to remedy errors recorded on the Arrival-Departure Record at the time of entry to the United States relating to improper non-immigrant classification, inaccurate biographical information or incorrect period of admission, if appropriate.
Any designated deferred inspection location or CBP office located within an international airport should be able to assist you, regardless of where the actual document was issued. In many instances, the location of your final destination where the discrepancy will be resolved may not be the port of your first arrival into the United States. Travelers are encouraged to contact sites not located within an international airport to establish an appointment, if necessary. Mail-in procedures are not available.
Currently, there is not an approved form to request the correction of inaccurate information recorded on the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 at the time of entry into the United States. You will need to bring the questionable CBP Form I-94 or I-95 and documentation to support the claim that the form was not properly annotated. For example, present a passport and visa to justify an incorrect visa classification or an approved petition to support an incorrect admission period. A fee will not be assessed.
The CBP offices within the international airports and deferred inspection locations are only authorized to correct errors that occurred at the time of arrival. Requests to replace the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 that has been lost, stolen or mutilated must be filed with USCIS.
Authorized stays that were limited at the port of first arrival by supervisory authorization as noted on the reverse side of the CBP Form I-94 will not be corrected. Under these circumstances, you will be required to file an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, with USCIS.
In that case, here is the relevant Q&A in the www.cbp.gov website. Hope it helps:
Q: How do I correct an Arrival-Departure Record reflecting an incorrect admission classification, biographical information or period of admission?
A: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will review and issue the necessary documents to remedy errors recorded on the Arrival-Departure Record at the time of entry to the United States relating to improper non-immigrant classification, inaccurate biographical information or incorrect period of admission, if appropriate.
Any designated deferred inspection location or CBP office located within an international airport should be able to assist you, regardless of where the actual document was issued. In many instances, the location of your final destination where the discrepancy will be resolved may not be the port of your first arrival into the United States. Travelers are encouraged to contact sites not located within an international airport to establish an appointment, if necessary. Mail-in procedures are not available.
Currently, there is not an approved form to request the correction of inaccurate information recorded on the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 at the time of entry into the United States. You will need to bring the questionable CBP Form I-94 or I-95 and documentation to support the claim that the form was not properly annotated. For example, present a passport and visa to justify an incorrect visa classification or an approved petition to support an incorrect admission period. A fee will not be assessed.
The CBP offices within the international airports and deferred inspection locations are only authorized to correct errors that occurred at the time of arrival. Requests to replace the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 that has been lost, stolen or mutilated must be filed with USCIS.
Authorized stays that were limited at the port of first arrival by supervisory authorization as noted on the reverse side of the CBP Form I-94 will not be corrected. Under these circumstances, you will be required to file an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, with USCIS.
hair The Smiths are reuniting
saketkapur
09-16 05:25 PM
done
CNN=Corrupt Naitivist Network
CNN=Corrupt Naitivist Network
more...
Rune
August 27th, 2004, 01:12 AM
Here in Europe the biggest problem is ATMs that has been modified. The most simple modification is a simple loop inserted into the slot that tries to fool its victims into believing the machine ate their card. In addition a helpful person will appear and tell the victim that there's a secret code to be keyed in (999 + personal pin code) to make the machine spit out the card again...
Then they upped the stakes a bit. Today's con-person installs a small card reader at the ATM's slot. In addition there's a small camera (here's the relevant bit) that take pictures as people enter their code. This has been used and such equipment has even been recovered in atleast one case.
As for someone looking over your shoulder in the store, and perhaps even snapping a picture of it... Well, lets just say you don't want to leave your card out of sight. Don't assume your card is worthless plastic in someone else's hands.
We card users are basically using yesterday's (actually: last decade's/century's) technology to access our money while the countless villains out there are armed with today's technology. We're sitting ducks.
The card companies are reluctant to tell us this, but eventually as they roll out new technology (smart cards with bio-signatures) it will become blatantly apparent to everyone. Here in Norway they're scheduled to do this over the next year I think.
Then they upped the stakes a bit. Today's con-person installs a small card reader at the ATM's slot. In addition there's a small camera (here's the relevant bit) that take pictures as people enter their code. This has been used and such equipment has even been recovered in atleast one case.
As for someone looking over your shoulder in the store, and perhaps even snapping a picture of it... Well, lets just say you don't want to leave your card out of sight. Don't assume your card is worthless plastic in someone else's hands.
We card users are basically using yesterday's (actually: last decade's/century's) technology to access our money while the countless villains out there are armed with today's technology. We're sitting ducks.
The card companies are reluctant to tell us this, but eventually as they roll out new technology (smart cards with bio-signatures) it will become blatantly apparent to everyone. Here in Norway they're scheduled to do this over the next year I think.
hot The Smiths and Morrissey
yabadaba
06-01 01:54 PM
i dont get it...how come programmers guild gets a say in everything when they cant even get members to join or to even get people to be on their board of directors?
i have not seen one resume of an american tech worker that lists programmers guild as an association they belong to. Still.. how to they get solicited for opinions every day and Kim Berry keeps using strong rheotric to influence public opinion? What about his war on legal immigrants?
"Board Members
Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
John Miano (New Jersey)
Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
(three openings)
Officers
President: Mr. Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Secretary: (open)
Treasurer: John Miano (New Jersey)
Membership Chairman: Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
V.P. Governmental Relations: Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
Newsletter Editor: Open
Newsletter Coeditor: Open
V.P. Public Relations: Open
V.P. Advertising: Open
Press Releases: Open
Assistant webmaster: Open
(If you would like to contribute to our cause in another way, please contact us.)
The Programmers Guild is incorporated "
i have not seen one resume of an american tech worker that lists programmers guild as an association they belong to. Still.. how to they get solicited for opinions every day and Kim Berry keeps using strong rheotric to influence public opinion? What about his war on legal immigrants?
"Board Members
Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
John Miano (New Jersey)
Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
(three openings)
Officers
President: Mr. Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Secretary: (open)
Treasurer: John Miano (New Jersey)
Membership Chairman: Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
V.P. Governmental Relations: Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
Newsletter Editor: Open
Newsletter Coeditor: Open
V.P. Public Relations: Open
V.P. Advertising: Open
Press Releases: Open
Assistant webmaster: Open
(If you would like to contribute to our cause in another way, please contact us.)
The Programmers Guild is incorporated "
more...
house Rubber Ring - The Smiths
pitha
06-11 12:46 PM
somebody please close this thread
tattoo morrissey smiths quiff hair.
DDLMODES
10-09 07:47 PM
Service request ?? What is that ??
Anyway, I understand that many people are in the same situation and that makes it a bit better. I will wait... Thanks for the replies...
Its just scary that after all these years they might consider the case abandoned if you don't receive the damn FP letter. Some guys didn't even get the receipts yet. I feel for those...
P.S.: Anybody got the case closed because they missed the FP appointment ? Is there a way to reopen it ?
Thanks again guys !
Anyway, I understand that many people are in the same situation and that makes it a bit better. I will wait... Thanks for the replies...
Its just scary that after all these years they might consider the case abandoned if you don't receive the damn FP letter. Some guys didn't even get the receipts yet. I feel for those...
P.S.: Anybody got the case closed because they missed the FP appointment ? Is there a way to reopen it ?
Thanks again guys !
more...
pictures he liked The Smiths (read
GotGC??
01-08 12:03 AM
.
I wud just like to add that shud you travel and use your current visa your new I-94 will be stamped with date June 07. Then you have to extend you H-4 and your old approval will not be valid.
That's not true. I've done that many times, and I'm sure many other would have done the same without affecting the newly approved petition.
Yes, something about the "last action rule" (I don't know much about it) causes some problem when you are outside the US at the time your H1/H4 petition gets approved (in other words, you should be present in the US the day the H1/H4 gets approved) but this rule does not apply in this case because the petition has already been approved.
These are just my thoughts. And I am not a layer.
Do you have a basis for the statement you are making? Any references, rules, etc.?
Have a great trip
I wud just like to add that shud you travel and use your current visa your new I-94 will be stamped with date June 07. Then you have to extend you H-4 and your old approval will not be valid.
That's not true. I've done that many times, and I'm sure many other would have done the same without affecting the newly approved petition.
Yes, something about the "last action rule" (I don't know much about it) causes some problem when you are outside the US at the time your H1/H4 petition gets approved (in other words, you should be present in the US the day the H1/H4 gets approved) but this rule does not apply in this case because the petition has already been approved.
These are just my thoughts. And I am not a layer.
Do you have a basis for the statement you are making? Any references, rules, etc.?
Have a great trip
dresses Morrissey) of the Smiths
chanduv23
03-14 12:16 PM
Thank you all for your responses. We just wanted to keep a plan B active. Both of us are on h1b and from India. After residency, she will have 3 more years on h1b, and I am entering 8th year on h1b, if we don't get GC after all this, we would like to try various options like India, Canada, Australia etc.. and that's why we started enquiring.
more...
makeup morrissey stencil by kflmaria
wonderlust
07-19 12:17 AM
:confused:
My lawyer siad it is not necessary to have either W2 or Tax return documents for I485. I read the filing instruction about 4-5 times and did not find this requirement.
I did not send mine. Hope it's not a problem.
W
My lawyer siad it is not necessary to have either W2 or Tax return documents for I485. I read the filing instruction about 4-5 times and did not find this requirement.
I did not send mine. Hope it's not a problem.
W
girlfriend Smiths and Morrissey Night
skagitswimmer
June 7th, 2005, 08:00 AM
Thanks again. What threw me was that even though the detail was blown there was lots of colour. It is not like when it gets blown to white by direct sunlight.
The shot we are all talking about was originally in RAW, by the way.
This is the time in a while that I have identified a problem that wouldn't be solved with a large expenditure of cash
The shot we are all talking about was originally in RAW, by the way.
This is the time in a while that I have identified a problem that wouldn't be solved with a large expenditure of cash