Aura M.
03-24 03:40 PM
My answer might be a little too pessimistic but I actually filed an appeal for a denied LC in Sep 2006. and as of today I still haven't heard from them. we tried calling and emailing them but they keep asking us to wait and they will get to it.
sorry and good luck. please keep me updated if you hear something from them.
Thanks
Have you hear anything from your appeal? Please let me know.
Thank you.
sorry and good luck. please keep me updated if you hear something from them.
Thanks
Have you hear anything from your appeal? Please let me know.
Thank you.
wallpaper Wallpaper 、Korean ddung
.soulty
01-20 03:52 AM
I really like this, nice work man.
cdeneo
03-25 09:36 PM
Is delivery confirmation possible for PO Box addresses?
I used Fedex Ground , just a tad more expensive than USPS Priority ( if you add all delivery confirmation etc etc ).
I used Fedex Ground , just a tad more expensive than USPS Priority ( if you add all delivery confirmation etc etc ).
2011 South Korea Model Wallpaper
kpchal2
03-17 10:34 PM
HI
I am in a very peculiar situation. I have been exploited twice by my previous employers who applied for my green card but ddid not let me know what the situatuion is. here is my situation
company A applied for my green card on Nov 1 2004. Labor got approved in Feb 2006. Applied for my I-140 in Feb 2006.
Changed company to Company B in May 2006.
Company B applied for labor in May 2006. I-140 from company A got approved in July 2006. (please note that this is I-140 from company A). The Labor for Company B got approved in october 2006. I-140 with company B applied in Nov 2006.
Changed company to Company C in Jan 2007.
Company C applied for labor in May 2007. Labor approved in May and I-140 applied in May 2007 itself. Now ironically I-140 for company B and Company C got approved on the same day.
I was totally amazed with 3 green card applications and did not know what to do and what my priority date was and so called USCIS and got transferred to the second level. From the conversation it looked like my labor priority is coming from Nov 2004 from my first application. Is this possible. Is there anyway that the USCIS people are trying to help me. The guy was literally telling me Nov 2004 was my priority date. Now should I be thrilled about it or is it just me and this is another stroke of their stupidity answering.
Can some gurus tell me how I can find my priority date. Please help me. I really want to know what my priority date is and wjhat my application category is . How can I find this information.
Thanks
I am in a very peculiar situation. I have been exploited twice by my previous employers who applied for my green card but ddid not let me know what the situatuion is. here is my situation
company A applied for my green card on Nov 1 2004. Labor got approved in Feb 2006. Applied for my I-140 in Feb 2006.
Changed company to Company B in May 2006.
Company B applied for labor in May 2006. I-140 from company A got approved in July 2006. (please note that this is I-140 from company A). The Labor for Company B got approved in october 2006. I-140 with company B applied in Nov 2006.
Changed company to Company C in Jan 2007.
Company C applied for labor in May 2007. Labor approved in May and I-140 applied in May 2007 itself. Now ironically I-140 for company B and Company C got approved on the same day.
I was totally amazed with 3 green card applications and did not know what to do and what my priority date was and so called USCIS and got transferred to the second level. From the conversation it looked like my labor priority is coming from Nov 2004 from my first application. Is this possible. Is there anyway that the USCIS people are trying to help me. The guy was literally telling me Nov 2004 was my priority date. Now should I be thrilled about it or is it just me and this is another stroke of their stupidity answering.
Can some gurus tell me how I can find my priority date. Please help me. I really want to know what my priority date is and wjhat my application category is . How can I find this information.
Thanks
more...
kannan
04-11 04:28 PM
I lost my job.My 140 is approved and I 485 is over 180 days.I have 2 yr EAD .I was laid off on 6 th April and I see LUD on I-485 on 9 april.I am so much worried that I may get RFE.
What are my option if I get RFE on Employment before getting new job.How can I get my RFE from company lawyer becase Lawyer address is on my 485 Receipt.
What are my option if I get RFE on Employment before getting new job.How can I get my RFE from company lawyer becase Lawyer address is on my 485 Receipt.
husamymd
12-30 01:58 PM
Let me put my 2 cents worth. I am one of the members who would be able to contribute $500. Not sure if I can do it on a recurring basis. But you guys wanted to identify the initial group and here I am. Hope that helps
more...
larmani
08-14 12:30 AM
Whatever my Lawyer has done , has not worked so far, I guess he sent copies of both I140's and a letter requesting to use the EB3 PD with the EB2 case.
My lawyer also done the same thing. However, TSC sent a reply back saying contact National Service Center.
My lawyer also done the same thing. However, TSC sent a reply back saying contact National Service Center.
2010 Congrats to the Korean Zombie,
eb3India
09-25 10:19 AM
Here is the mail from AILA,
September 25, 2006
Dear Immigration Advocates-
Your help is STILL needed TODAY! Senate Appropriators will meet late THIS AFTERNOON to decide if enforcement-only bills will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's appropriations package. Urge your Senators to oppose efforts to attach anti-immigration measures to this must-pass bill. Call or email your Senators TODAY - encourage them to weigh-in with Senate Appropriators about this urgent matter.
You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
Email your Senators through Contact Congress on AILA's website. We've already created a sample letter for you to send. All you need to do is enter your zip code, hit send, and your voice will be heard in Congress.
Call your Senators, you can find their telephone numbers in our Congressional Directory and you can use these talking points to help you when you call:
� Congress should stop playing politics with immigration and pass comprehensive immigration reform. These enforcement-only bills will do nothing to enhance border security and will not move us one inch closer to fixing our broken immigration system.
� Attaching these bills to DHS appropriations circumvents the legislative process on an issue of critical national importance; it undermines the intense and unflagging efforts of the Senate to solve this crisis; and it rewards the House for spending the summer attacking the Senate while abdicating its responsibility to the American people.
� Senators should forcefully oppose this effort by the House to nullify the Senate's bi-partison solution. If the Senate acquiesces on these provisions, the House will only be emboldened and will never return to debate comprehensive reform. This will not be "enforcement-first", it will be "enforcement-only."
� For laws to work, they must be realistic and fair. Our current immigration laws are neither: proposals like these that ignore the reality that immigrants come here to work and to be with their families are destined to fail.
� Giving the government unchecked powers to punish immigrants, and making local police chase after immigrants, will only drive undocumented immigrants further underground. It will not fix the problem; it will make matters worse.
We called you to action last week to alert you to an underhanded political strategy from immigration restrictionists to attach three enforcement-only bills to the DHS appropriations bill, a bill that must pass this year. You and your colleagues sent close to 2,000 letters to Congress, but we'll need more letters and phone calls in order to ensure that Senate Appropriators exclude these measures from the bill.
Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives are working behind closed doors and using procedural mechanisms to attach enforcement-only provisions contained in three bills (H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095, and H.R. 4830) to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, a piece of legislation that must pass this year. Although House leaders label these bills "border security" legislation, they are in fact harsh enforcement measures lifted from Rep. Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4437 that endanger due process rights and do little to make our borders more secure. You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
If these provisions are attached to the must-pass DHS bill, it will be nearly impossible to defeat them. Our best defense against this backdoor strategy is to put pressure on each U.S. Senator and encourage them to oppose any attempt to attach, or further these three enforcement-only bills. We're working hard in Washington to derail these political machinations, but we can't do it alone. We need your help. Please email or call both of your Senators today.
Over the summer House leadership used dozens of faux hearings to stage public displays of aversion to immigration reform. While they kept the media busy and their restrictionist base roiled, they failed to change the minds of the majority of Americans who support a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system. Nor did they succeed in backing down the U.S. Senators who supported S. 2611, a strong step towards comprehensive immigration reform. Now that House leaders know that the full Senate won't pass their enforcement-only agenda, they have resorted to closed-door politicking. We must fight to prevent the breach of justice that would result from attaching these enforcement-only bills to must-pass legislation.
Please call and email your Senators today. Now is the time for action.
Sincerely,
Marshall
Marshall Fitz
Director of Advocacy, AILA
Email Marshall
The enforcement-only provisions are:
� Sections 101 and 102 of the Dangerous Alien Detention Act contained in H.R. 6094, which seek to legitimize the practice of indefinite detention of aliens awaiting removal, despite Supreme Court decisions requiring elimination of this practice;
� Section 201 of the Criminal Alien Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would expand the use of expedited removal proceedings to individuals already in the United States - even individuals who have resided here for years - in ways that would significantly increase the risk of deporting innocent people;
� Sections 301-303 of the Alien Gang Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would grant unfettered discretion to the executive branch to designate "criminal street gangs" and then strip members of such gangs of virtually all rights;
� Section 101 of H.R. 6095, which gives state and local police authority to investigate, arrest, and detain noncitizens for civil violations of immigration status;
� Sections 301 and 302 of the Ending Catch and Release Act contained in H.R. 6095, which would limit the power of federal courts to grant injunctive relief in civil immigration proceedings, despite acknowledgement by DOJ that such relief does not interfere with efforts to end the practice of catch-and-release.
September 25, 2006
Dear Immigration Advocates-
Your help is STILL needed TODAY! Senate Appropriators will meet late THIS AFTERNOON to decide if enforcement-only bills will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's appropriations package. Urge your Senators to oppose efforts to attach anti-immigration measures to this must-pass bill. Call or email your Senators TODAY - encourage them to weigh-in with Senate Appropriators about this urgent matter.
You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
Email your Senators through Contact Congress on AILA's website. We've already created a sample letter for you to send. All you need to do is enter your zip code, hit send, and your voice will be heard in Congress.
Call your Senators, you can find their telephone numbers in our Congressional Directory and you can use these talking points to help you when you call:
� Congress should stop playing politics with immigration and pass comprehensive immigration reform. These enforcement-only bills will do nothing to enhance border security and will not move us one inch closer to fixing our broken immigration system.
� Attaching these bills to DHS appropriations circumvents the legislative process on an issue of critical national importance; it undermines the intense and unflagging efforts of the Senate to solve this crisis; and it rewards the House for spending the summer attacking the Senate while abdicating its responsibility to the American people.
� Senators should forcefully oppose this effort by the House to nullify the Senate's bi-partison solution. If the Senate acquiesces on these provisions, the House will only be emboldened and will never return to debate comprehensive reform. This will not be "enforcement-first", it will be "enforcement-only."
� For laws to work, they must be realistic and fair. Our current immigration laws are neither: proposals like these that ignore the reality that immigrants come here to work and to be with their families are destined to fail.
� Giving the government unchecked powers to punish immigrants, and making local police chase after immigrants, will only drive undocumented immigrants further underground. It will not fix the problem; it will make matters worse.
We called you to action last week to alert you to an underhanded political strategy from immigration restrictionists to attach three enforcement-only bills to the DHS appropriations bill, a bill that must pass this year. You and your colleagues sent close to 2,000 letters to Congress, but we'll need more letters and phone calls in order to ensure that Senate Appropriators exclude these measures from the bill.
Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives are working behind closed doors and using procedural mechanisms to attach enforcement-only provisions contained in three bills (H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095, and H.R. 4830) to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, a piece of legislation that must pass this year. Although House leaders label these bills "border security" legislation, they are in fact harsh enforcement measures lifted from Rep. Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4437 that endanger due process rights and do little to make our borders more secure. You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
If these provisions are attached to the must-pass DHS bill, it will be nearly impossible to defeat them. Our best defense against this backdoor strategy is to put pressure on each U.S. Senator and encourage them to oppose any attempt to attach, or further these three enforcement-only bills. We're working hard in Washington to derail these political machinations, but we can't do it alone. We need your help. Please email or call both of your Senators today.
Over the summer House leadership used dozens of faux hearings to stage public displays of aversion to immigration reform. While they kept the media busy and their restrictionist base roiled, they failed to change the minds of the majority of Americans who support a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system. Nor did they succeed in backing down the U.S. Senators who supported S. 2611, a strong step towards comprehensive immigration reform. Now that House leaders know that the full Senate won't pass their enforcement-only agenda, they have resorted to closed-door politicking. We must fight to prevent the breach of justice that would result from attaching these enforcement-only bills to must-pass legislation.
Please call and email your Senators today. Now is the time for action.
Sincerely,
Marshall
Marshall Fitz
Director of Advocacy, AILA
Email Marshall
The enforcement-only provisions are:
� Sections 101 and 102 of the Dangerous Alien Detention Act contained in H.R. 6094, which seek to legitimize the practice of indefinite detention of aliens awaiting removal, despite Supreme Court decisions requiring elimination of this practice;
� Section 201 of the Criminal Alien Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would expand the use of expedited removal proceedings to individuals already in the United States - even individuals who have resided here for years - in ways that would significantly increase the risk of deporting innocent people;
� Sections 301-303 of the Alien Gang Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would grant unfettered discretion to the executive branch to designate "criminal street gangs" and then strip members of such gangs of virtually all rights;
� Section 101 of H.R. 6095, which gives state and local police authority to investigate, arrest, and detain noncitizens for civil violations of immigration status;
� Sections 301 and 302 of the Ending Catch and Release Act contained in H.R. 6095, which would limit the power of federal courts to grant injunctive relief in civil immigration proceedings, despite acknowledgement by DOJ that such relief does not interfere with efforts to end the practice of catch-and-release.
more...
Aah_GC
05-05 07:27 AM
Hello Friends,
Thanks for your time and for the suggestion. Some good news, we went back to the airport - got hold of the trolley folks (where my father had misplaced his passport pouch) and there were some really friendly folks who helped us locate the pouch from Lost and Found department. This happened in JFK.
Thanks again for the help.
Thanks for your time and for the suggestion. Some good news, we went back to the airport - got hold of the trolley folks (where my father had misplaced his passport pouch) and there were some really friendly folks who helped us locate the pouch from Lost and Found department. This happened in JFK.
Thanks again for the help.
hair 1024x640 — download HD Korean
tikka
06-07 04:28 PM
please Contribute.
Iv Needs Funds
Iv Needs Funds
more...
sivaramakrishna
07-09 11:41 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble but that list is sorted alphabetically.
Then may be #1 choice for people to work outside USA
Then may be #1 choice for people to work outside USA
hot SPAO Korean wallpaper
nk2006
11-12 10:15 AM
Hi Connecticut members,
There is an IV action item to fight recent practice of USCIS in denying I485 applications in some AC21 cases. For more info, please visit:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22182
It’s a serious issue which can affect many of us, please act now and send letters (letter formats and everything else is ready in the thread quoted above). It will only take a few minutes of your time.
State chapter leader,
Please try to bring attention of your state members to this IV core approved effort.
Thank you.
There is an IV action item to fight recent practice of USCIS in denying I485 applications in some AC21 cases. For more info, please visit:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22182
It’s a serious issue which can affect many of us, please act now and send letters (letter formats and everything else is ready in the thread quoted above). It will only take a few minutes of your time.
State chapter leader,
Please try to bring attention of your state members to this IV core approved effort.
Thank you.
more...
house Korean wallpaper - Smash korea
bayarea07
03-20 05:44 PM
Well, if you go according to the Lawyer of this forum with which guys had a conference call (you can hear the recording thats on the home page of this site)
Then its advisable to apply in EB3 category and her reasoning was that with her experience she has seen lots of EB2 application in the past few years and very less EB3 apps and hence chances of EB3 being processed earlier than EB2 are quiet high.
I needed some advice on this situation I've found myself in.
I have a PERM application filed with my current employer (EB2, Oct 2007). Like most EB2 apps, mine is under a business necessity audit and we have filed an audit response for it. My lawyers are pretty sure that we will clear the audit. Guessing from , the response may be 2-3 months away.
Now I have a second offer from another company. Everything about the job and company is better than my current, but the legal team at this second company says that they will only file in EB3 (even though the job requirement says Bachelors + 8 yrs). They say that they have other EB2 audits going on and have made it a policy to only do EB3 going forward.
I'm on the 5th year of my H1 (don't ask, had a PD of 2005, caught up in BEC and got laid off last May, refiled Oct 07 with the current employer) and this probably will be the last chance for me to change jobs before I cool my heels and wait for the repercussions of the July Fiasco to be over with.
I can't decide on weather to keep my existing EB2 job or take the new offer and step down to EB3.
Please help!
Then its advisable to apply in EB3 category and her reasoning was that with her experience she has seen lots of EB2 application in the past few years and very less EB3 apps and hence chances of EB3 being processed earlier than EB2 are quiet high.
I needed some advice on this situation I've found myself in.
I have a PERM application filed with my current employer (EB2, Oct 2007). Like most EB2 apps, mine is under a business necessity audit and we have filed an audit response for it. My lawyers are pretty sure that we will clear the audit. Guessing from , the response may be 2-3 months away.
Now I have a second offer from another company. Everything about the job and company is better than my current, but the legal team at this second company says that they will only file in EB3 (even though the job requirement says Bachelors + 8 yrs). They say that they have other EB2 audits going on and have made it a policy to only do EB3 going forward.
I'm on the 5th year of my H1 (don't ask, had a PD of 2005, caught up in BEC and got laid off last May, refiled Oct 07 with the current employer) and this probably will be the last chance for me to change jobs before I cool my heels and wait for the repercussions of the July Fiasco to be over with.
I can't decide on weather to keep my existing EB2 job or take the new offer and step down to EB3.
Please help!
tattoo Wallpaper 、Korean
chintu25
07-30 12:28 PM
:confused: Guys ,
I just checked my I140 approval notice and it shows LUD as July 28th 2007
I am totally confused as to why it shows that since my I140 is approved since a long time .
I have applied for 485 on June 29th 2007 and it reached USCIS TSC on July 2nd 2007.
Does the LUD on my I140 have anything to do with my 485 Application ??
Please advise ?
I just checked my I140 approval notice and it shows LUD as July 28th 2007
I am totally confused as to why it shows that since my I140 is approved since a long time .
I have applied for 485 on June 29th 2007 and it reached USCIS TSC on July 2nd 2007.
Does the LUD on my I140 have anything to do with my 485 Application ??
Please advise ?
more...
pictures มี Free Wall paper สวยๆ
styrum
01-23 11:47 AM
Thank you for contacting me regarding the immigration debate in the
U.S. Senate. It was good to hear from you.
As you know, in the 109th Congress, the Senate considered changes to
immigration law. These efforts would affect more than just undocumented
workers here in the United States � it would affect every American in
one way or another.
I supported the bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of
2006, S. 2611, when it was considered in the Senate during the 109th
Congress. This bill would have provided many new provisions for border
security and enforcement and to address legal and illegal immigration. The
legislation would have provided funding to reinforce hundreds of miles
of existing border fences and establish a �virtual fence� comprised
of cameras, sensors, automated aerial surveillance tools, and other
security measures. The bill would also have authorized funding for
additional Customs and Border Patrol agents to assist with security efforts,
and required employers to have a system to verify the required
documentation from potential workers. S. 2611 would have increased the number
of visas for high-skilled workers, including those who have earned an
advanced degree. Finally, the bill would not have allowed for amnesty,
but it would have provided a meaningful way to address the legal status
of undocumented workers who currently live in our country.
Under the Senate proposal, undocumented workers could have earned legal
status after completing all the requirements to begin to adjust their
legal status. These requirements include filing an application, payment
of all fines, fees, and back federal income taxes, and providing proof
of being physically present in the United States and being employed for
five years prior to the bill�s enactment. Undocumented workers must
then continue to show proof of employment and being present for at
least six years after the bill would have gone into effect. Individuals
must also demonstrate basic citizenship skills, pass security and law
enforcement requirements, and complete Selective Service registration
requirements.
As you may know, the comprehensive immigration bill passed the Senate
on a bipartisan vote with the support of the White House. The House of
Representatives passed another version of immigration reform that
emphasized enforcement only. Instead of meeting in conference to negotiate
differences in the respective bills, the House held a series of public
hearings around the country, and refused to meet with Senate
negotiators, and the 109th Congress ended without this issue being addressed.
I believe that we need a comprehensive approach to immigration reform.
Enforcement is important, and securing our borders is important. But
if we focus only on enforcement and border security, then we will only
have addressed part of the problem. Many of the current proposals are
unworkable and would ultimately cause more harm to our economy and our
country. Our immigration policy should also provide positive change for
the future of our country. We should make sure our actions reflect our
security, our economy, and the opportunity that America has offered for
generations of immigrants.
As we move forward to the 110th Congress, please know that I will keep
your thoughts in mind as Congress begins to work on immigration reform.
If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please
visit my website at http://murray.senate.gov/updates/.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator
U.S. Senate. It was good to hear from you.
As you know, in the 109th Congress, the Senate considered changes to
immigration law. These efforts would affect more than just undocumented
workers here in the United States � it would affect every American in
one way or another.
I supported the bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of
2006, S. 2611, when it was considered in the Senate during the 109th
Congress. This bill would have provided many new provisions for border
security and enforcement and to address legal and illegal immigration. The
legislation would have provided funding to reinforce hundreds of miles
of existing border fences and establish a �virtual fence� comprised
of cameras, sensors, automated aerial surveillance tools, and other
security measures. The bill would also have authorized funding for
additional Customs and Border Patrol agents to assist with security efforts,
and required employers to have a system to verify the required
documentation from potential workers. S. 2611 would have increased the number
of visas for high-skilled workers, including those who have earned an
advanced degree. Finally, the bill would not have allowed for amnesty,
but it would have provided a meaningful way to address the legal status
of undocumented workers who currently live in our country.
Under the Senate proposal, undocumented workers could have earned legal
status after completing all the requirements to begin to adjust their
legal status. These requirements include filing an application, payment
of all fines, fees, and back federal income taxes, and providing proof
of being physically present in the United States and being employed for
five years prior to the bill�s enactment. Undocumented workers must
then continue to show proof of employment and being present for at
least six years after the bill would have gone into effect. Individuals
must also demonstrate basic citizenship skills, pass security and law
enforcement requirements, and complete Selective Service registration
requirements.
As you may know, the comprehensive immigration bill passed the Senate
on a bipartisan vote with the support of the White House. The House of
Representatives passed another version of immigration reform that
emphasized enforcement only. Instead of meeting in conference to negotiate
differences in the respective bills, the House held a series of public
hearings around the country, and refused to meet with Senate
negotiators, and the 109th Congress ended without this issue being addressed.
I believe that we need a comprehensive approach to immigration reform.
Enforcement is important, and securing our borders is important. But
if we focus only on enforcement and border security, then we will only
have addressed part of the problem. Many of the current proposals are
unworkable and would ultimately cause more harm to our economy and our
country. Our immigration policy should also provide positive change for
the future of our country. We should make sure our actions reflect our
security, our economy, and the opportunity that America has offered for
generations of immigrants.
As we move forward to the 110th Congress, please know that I will keep
your thoughts in mind as Congress begins to work on immigration reform.
If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please
visit my website at http://murray.senate.gov/updates/.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator
dresses South Korea Wallpapers
Bpositive
03-05 01:22 PM
DO they tell you to reschedule the appointment or just ask you to come with FP notice by doing walk-in after it heals. Also do they put a note in their system that you could not give the FP because of so and so reason. Also anyone knows what Boston ASC does , whether they permit walk-ins during the week.
You said you went after a month, so I assume that they must have noted that you did appear for the FP but could not do it.
Sorry if I am sounding a little desperate but I just want to get this over with the right way without any hassles.
Yep..they just noted that I came for the initial appointment and asked to come after my finger heals..i had surgery on the finger and went back after the finger healed
You said you went after a month, so I assume that they must have noted that you did appear for the FP but could not do it.
Sorry if I am sounding a little desperate but I just want to get this over with the right way without any hassles.
Yep..they just noted that I came for the initial appointment and asked to come after my finger heals..i had surgery on the finger and went back after the finger healed
more...
makeup 0011__korea-snsd-46-wallpaper.
mk26
02-10 08:12 AM
Do you have a legal reference for the > 50 miles rule ? In my case it is just 10 miles (moved from one town to next town). So I guess I am fine ?
Is this in same county? If so then you may not need amendments..(not sure though)
Is this in same county? If so then you may not need amendments..(not sure though)
girlfriend Korean Girls wallpaper
PD_Dec2002
07-13 01:42 PM
I had to generate paystubs for my wife from Jan 07 to May 07 due to recent USCIS goof up. She started working from May 07. However all the paystubs generated ( 5) , have a pay period from 05/01 - 05/31 and pay date is 07/11
Does anyone know if it is ok to have the 5 paystubs with the same pay period. The Lca talks about salary per year. The employers claims that it is ok. What should I do in this case. Any suggestions are highly appreciated.
So let me summarize this so I understand well.
Your wife started work only in June 2007. But you wanted to show USCIS that your wife was actually working from Jan 2007. So you asked her employer to give pay stubs for Jan - May 2007. The employer did that (and I am guessing) without really paying you for those months. And you paid taxes (Federal and State) and SS and Medicare for those months in July.
So USCIS and IRS will both think that your wife has been working since Jan 2007 when in reality she started only in June 2007.
Thanks,
Jayant
Does anyone know if it is ok to have the 5 paystubs with the same pay period. The Lca talks about salary per year. The employers claims that it is ok. What should I do in this case. Any suggestions are highly appreciated.
So let me summarize this so I understand well.
Your wife started work only in June 2007. But you wanted to show USCIS that your wife was actually working from Jan 2007. So you asked her employer to give pay stubs for Jan - May 2007. The employer did that (and I am guessing) without really paying you for those months. And you paid taxes (Federal and State) and SS and Medicare for those months in July.
So USCIS and IRS will both think that your wife has been working since Jan 2007 when in reality she started only in June 2007.
Thanks,
Jayant
hairstyles dresses SPAO Korean wallpaper
PD_Dec2002
03-08 11:18 PM
Here's the guidance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on your query: http://help.cbp.gov/cgi-bin/customs.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=752&p_created=1077641280&p_sid=MEmYDe-i&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9MSwxJnBfcHJvZHM9MCZwX2NhdHM9MCZwX3B2PSZ wX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJ nBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9STk0&p_li=&p_topview=1
I am also copy pasting the same content if you cannot open my link.
How to record departure from the United States after the fact.
Question: I did not turn in my I-94 when I left the U.S., what should I do?
Answer:
If you returned home with your Department of Homeland Security Form I-94 (white) or Form I-94W (green) Departure Record in your passport, it means that your departure was not recorded properly. It is your responsibility to correct this record. You must provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sufficient information so we can record your timely departure from the United States. This will close out your earlier record of arrival to this country.
If you do not validate a timely departure from the United States, or, if you cannot reasonably prove otherwise when you apply for admission to the U.S. in the future, CBP may conclude you remained in the U.S. beyond your authorized stay. If this happens, the next time you apply to enter the U.S. your visa may be subject to cancellation or you may be returned immediately to your foreign point of origin.
In particular, visitors who remain beyond their permitted stay in the United States under the Visa Waiver Program cannot reenter the U.S. in the future without obtaining a visa from a U.S. Consulate. If this occurs and you arrive at a U.S. port-of-entry seeking admission under the Visa Waiver Program without a visa, CBP Officers may order your immediate return to a foreign point of origin.
If you failed to turn in your I-94 Departure Record, please send it, along with any documentation that proves you left the United States to:
* ACS - CBP SBU
* 1084 South Laurel Road
* London, KY 40744
Do not mail your Form I-94 Departure Record or supporting information to any U.S. Consulate or Embassy, to any other CBP office in the United States, or to any address other than the one above. Only at this location are we able to make the necessary corrections to CBP records to prevent inconvenience to you in the future.
To validate departure, CBP will consider a variety of information, including but not limited to:
*
Original boarding passes you used to depart the United States;
* Photocopies of entry or departure stamps in your passport indicating entry to another country after you departed the United States (you should copy all passport pages that are not completely blank, and include the biographical page containing your photograph); and
* Photocopies of other supporting evidence, such as:
*
o Dated pay slips or vouchers from your employer to indicate you worked in another country after you departed the United States,
o Dated bank records showing transactions to indicate you were in another country after you left the United States,
o School records showing attendance at a school outside the United States to indicate you were in another country after you left the United States, and
o Dated credit card receipts, showing your name, but, the credit card number deleted, for purchases made after you left the United States to indicate you were in another country after leaving the United States.
To assist us in understanding the situation and correct your records quickly, please include an explanation letter in English. Your statement will not be acceptable without supporting evidence such as noted above. You must mail legible copies or original materials where possible. If you send original materials, you should retain a copy. CBP cannot return original materials after processing.
We strongly urge you to keep a copy of what you send to ACS-CBP and carry it with you the next time you come to the United States in case the CBP officer has any questions about your eligibility to enter.
If taking short trips (30 days or less) to Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean Islands during the course of your visit to the U.S., hold onto your I-94 or I-94 (W). It should only be turned in when you leave the U.S. to return home.
Delays beyond the traveler's control, such as cancelled or delayed flights, medical emergencies requiring a doctor's care, etc. are not considered unauthorized overstays, however, you will need to bring proof of the cause of your overstay next time you travel to the U.S. in order for it to be forgiven. For airline delays, ask the airline for a letter affirming the delay or a copy of your cancelled boarding pass.
Regards,
Jayant
I am also copy pasting the same content if you cannot open my link.
How to record departure from the United States after the fact.
Question: I did not turn in my I-94 when I left the U.S., what should I do?
Answer:
If you returned home with your Department of Homeland Security Form I-94 (white) or Form I-94W (green) Departure Record in your passport, it means that your departure was not recorded properly. It is your responsibility to correct this record. You must provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sufficient information so we can record your timely departure from the United States. This will close out your earlier record of arrival to this country.
If you do not validate a timely departure from the United States, or, if you cannot reasonably prove otherwise when you apply for admission to the U.S. in the future, CBP may conclude you remained in the U.S. beyond your authorized stay. If this happens, the next time you apply to enter the U.S. your visa may be subject to cancellation or you may be returned immediately to your foreign point of origin.
In particular, visitors who remain beyond their permitted stay in the United States under the Visa Waiver Program cannot reenter the U.S. in the future without obtaining a visa from a U.S. Consulate. If this occurs and you arrive at a U.S. port-of-entry seeking admission under the Visa Waiver Program without a visa, CBP Officers may order your immediate return to a foreign point of origin.
If you failed to turn in your I-94 Departure Record, please send it, along with any documentation that proves you left the United States to:
* ACS - CBP SBU
* 1084 South Laurel Road
* London, KY 40744
Do not mail your Form I-94 Departure Record or supporting information to any U.S. Consulate or Embassy, to any other CBP office in the United States, or to any address other than the one above. Only at this location are we able to make the necessary corrections to CBP records to prevent inconvenience to you in the future.
To validate departure, CBP will consider a variety of information, including but not limited to:
*
Original boarding passes you used to depart the United States;
* Photocopies of entry or departure stamps in your passport indicating entry to another country after you departed the United States (you should copy all passport pages that are not completely blank, and include the biographical page containing your photograph); and
* Photocopies of other supporting evidence, such as:
*
o Dated pay slips or vouchers from your employer to indicate you worked in another country after you departed the United States,
o Dated bank records showing transactions to indicate you were in another country after you left the United States,
o School records showing attendance at a school outside the United States to indicate you were in another country after you left the United States, and
o Dated credit card receipts, showing your name, but, the credit card number deleted, for purchases made after you left the United States to indicate you were in another country after leaving the United States.
To assist us in understanding the situation and correct your records quickly, please include an explanation letter in English. Your statement will not be acceptable without supporting evidence such as noted above. You must mail legible copies or original materials where possible. If you send original materials, you should retain a copy. CBP cannot return original materials after processing.
We strongly urge you to keep a copy of what you send to ACS-CBP and carry it with you the next time you come to the United States in case the CBP officer has any questions about your eligibility to enter.
If taking short trips (30 days or less) to Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean Islands during the course of your visit to the U.S., hold onto your I-94 or I-94 (W). It should only be turned in when you leave the U.S. to return home.
Delays beyond the traveler's control, such as cancelled or delayed flights, medical emergencies requiring a doctor's care, etc. are not considered unauthorized overstays, however, you will need to bring proof of the cause of your overstay next time you travel to the U.S. in order for it to be forgiven. For airline delays, ask the airline for a letter affirming the delay or a copy of your cancelled boarding pass.
Regards,
Jayant
indigo10
12-03 12:17 PM
My Roommate had attended the HYD consulate on Dec 1st and he took tons of documents with him
At the interview the officer asked to show
Last 1 year paystubs
Asked if he works for a client and had any middle vendor
Client letter
Vendor letter
Agreements between vendor and employer (Asked if he had but did not ask to show)
Asked if the employer started GC processing (He is in 7th year of H1)
He got the stamp successfully.
At the interview the officer asked to show
Last 1 year paystubs
Asked if he works for a client and had any middle vendor
Client letter
Vendor letter
Agreements between vendor and employer (Asked if he had but did not ask to show)
Asked if the employer started GC processing (He is in 7th year of H1)
He got the stamp successfully.
Rayyan
07-03 01:20 PM
Hi All,
I am planning to get my H1B stamped in Chennai, India.
I got H1b extension last month for 3 years. I am planing to visit India in the month of Aug.
I need to know when do I make an appointment?
and will my name be added to PIMS if I make an appt?
Do I have to go to Chennai or I can go to any other Consulate for stamping?
What about PIMS verification, is there anyway I can have my name added to this database before I travel to India?
Anybody has any idea about this? Thanks in advance
I am planning to get my H1B stamped in Chennai, India.
I got H1b extension last month for 3 years. I am planing to visit India in the month of Aug.
I need to know when do I make an appointment?
and will my name be added to PIMS if I make an appt?
Do I have to go to Chennai or I can go to any other Consulate for stamping?
What about PIMS verification, is there anyway I can have my name added to this database before I travel to India?
Anybody has any idea about this? Thanks in advance
No comments:
Post a Comment