paskal
12-26 05:04 PM
please feel free to join in
those from other states asking this question: you are very welcome
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge: 405416
9pm cst
those from other states asking this question: you are very welcome
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge: 405416
9pm cst
wallpaper Love, unrequited, robs me of
mohitb272
07-16 07:24 PM
Hats off to IV :) :)
Waiting for the good news...
Waiting for the good news...
PHANI_TAVVALA
06-04 09:52 AM
Hello, I am trying to get all the sponsor documents together for my parents visitor visa stamping. I am having some problems getting a bank account verification letter. I have a checking account with a bank in Indiana (I used to stay there 2 years back) which I still use regularly. Most of my transactions are performed by internet banking and my pay checks are deposited directly into this bank account by my company. I have requested them to send a verification letter for which they replied in negative as they can do that if only I can be present in person and not over the phone. My current account balance in this account is around $12,000 and I have bank statements for each month going back to Feb' 2007. Can someone let me know hpw to deal with this situation ( I would really hate to drive/fly 700 miles to just get a bank letter).
I also have a problem with other bank deposit I have. It is a exclusively online HSBC savings account and I have $12,000 in this account with statements going back to July 2007. I could not get proper answer from customer service for my request to give me a account verification letter and I am not sure how to deal with this situation either.
Can someone please help me. Is account verification letter from the bank manager a must as mentioned on i-134? Wouldn't the bank statements suffice?
I also have a problem with other bank deposit I have. It is a exclusively online HSBC savings account and I have $12,000 in this account with statements going back to July 2007. I could not get proper answer from customer service for my request to give me a account verification letter and I am not sure how to deal with this situation either.
Can someone please help me. Is account verification letter from the bank manager a must as mentioned on i-134? Wouldn't the bank statements suffice?
2011 Funny Love Quotes - Funny
sam_hoosier
05-07 03:58 PM
I am suspecting it will not be favorable at all
Stop scaring people :) We have absolutely no way of knowing what the new regulations would be.
Stop scaring people :) We have absolutely no way of knowing what the new regulations would be.
more...
raj2007
02-18 10:32 PM
Unfortunately, we won't be able to do anything in your wife's matter. The people you are referring to as the ones whose cases got accepted are the ones with bounced checks. There is a difference between the manner in which USCIS treats cases with bounced checks and cases where checks are missing, are in an incorrect amount, there is a mismatch between words and figures in the check, check is not dated, check is not signed, etc.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
I see no harm to take infopass and explain your situation in person.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
I see no harm to take infopass and explain your situation in person.
vidyakulkarni
07-13 11:24 AM
we are highly skilled people. so we should wear business suit , it will give impact.
more...
purplehazea
06-11 01:00 PM
This is a weak president making rhetorics which never pan out. He knows his time has come to step out and this is only an attempt to use his left over strength. Honestly the president no longer enjoys support of his own party members and this is only rhetoric. There is just not enough time to move this through senate, house and then agree on it all.
2010 quotes about unrequited love.
raysaikat
04-21 01:17 PM
... it is essential that one be in H1-B status.
This is patently wrong. There are many people who are on EAD at the time of I-485 adjudication.
The only legal requirement is that the person has a valid offer from the I-140 sponsoring company (or some other one, if AC21 is used) for a same or similar job (similar to what was mentioned in the LC). In practice, the petitioner should have the job at the time of adjudication.
This is patently wrong. There are many people who are on EAD at the time of I-485 adjudication.
The only legal requirement is that the person has a valid offer from the I-140 sponsoring company (or some other one, if AC21 is used) for a same or similar job (similar to what was mentioned in the LC). In practice, the petitioner should have the job at the time of adjudication.
more...
breddy2000
12-08 07:02 PM
vet04, Unfortunatly I dont have an answer to your question but if you dont mind can u pls let us know more about your current job so that I can start looking at your current job as an option for me incase if I get a green card. I am serious and not kidding. I want to know who is paying
200k salary in this job market and what is the job requirement for that.
He/She might be a "Veterinarian" as his handle is named " Vet04".Might be frustrated working with Animals all day and looking for a change,but honestly I do no know whether Vets get paid so much...:D
Just kidding and no offense meant...:D
200k salary in this job market and what is the job requirement for that.
He/She might be a "Veterinarian" as his handle is named " Vet04".Might be frustrated working with Animals all day and looking for a change,but honestly I do no know whether Vets get paid so much...:D
Just kidding and no offense meant...:D
hair Quotes About Unrequited Love.
vallabhu
01-02 10:02 AM
Hi Guru's
My I140 filed in EB3 was denied yesterday for not having Mathematics as majors.
RFE was according to ETA 750 client accepts 3 years foreign degree please provide your transcripts to prove you have taken courses in maths, we though this was a simple query.
But I have Maths as major subject in my 3 year degree, we sent Letter signed by Registrar of Osmania University India on Math syllabus for my Degree and educational evaluation saying that Math is equivalent to maths in US Bachelors degree and also the transcripts with math highlighted.
But surprised to see this denial letter.
My attorney is confident that we would win the case if we appeal against the decision
what are my alternatives now and how long is it taking now to process this appeal.
My I140 filed in EB3 was denied yesterday for not having Mathematics as majors.
RFE was according to ETA 750 client accepts 3 years foreign degree please provide your transcripts to prove you have taken courses in maths, we though this was a simple query.
But I have Maths as major subject in my 3 year degree, we sent Letter signed by Registrar of Osmania University India on Math syllabus for my Degree and educational evaluation saying that Math is equivalent to maths in US Bachelors degree and also the transcripts with math highlighted.
But surprised to see this denial letter.
My attorney is confident that we would win the case if we appeal against the decision
what are my alternatives now and how long is it taking now to process this appeal.
more...
swissgear
06-24 11:15 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325412638269010.html#a rticleTabs%3Darticle
Date : June 23 2010
By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL
Mayor Michael Bloomberg will launch Thursday a coalition of mayors and business leaders to advocate for an overhaul of the nation's immigration policy, including legalizing undocumented immigrants and more strictly fining businesses that hire illegal workers.
"Our immigration policy is national suicide," Mr. Bloomberg said at a forum in Midtown Wednesday. "We educate the best and the brightest and then we don't give them a green card—we want people to create jobs but we won't let entrepreneurs from around the world come here."
During his latest inaugural address, Mr. Bloomberg vowed to push to rework the nation's immigration laws in the same way that he waged battle against illegal guns. This effort will be a cornerstone of the mayor's third-term agenda, aides said.
The coalition, the Partnership for a New American Economy, supports developing a secure system for employers to verify employment eligibility and strict penalties for businesses that fail to comply. The group wants to increase opportunities for immigrants to enter the workforce and for foreign students to stay in the country.
The group will advocate for securing the nation's borders and beefing up enforcement to prevent illegal immigration. The coalition supports establishing a legal path for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country now.
To effect decision-making in Washington, the group will issue research reports on the economic impact of immigration, poll public opinion, sponsor forums and potentially launch a media campaign. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, is expected to provide financial support for the group's activities, as he has with his gun group.
One City Hall official said the coalition will try to focus on immigration as a "dollar and cent issue," advocating that open borders help keep the U.S. more competitive.
President Obama has pledged to champion changes to federal immigration policy, but this spring said lawmakers "may not have an appetite" for a grueling debate on immigration this year.
In addition to Mr. Bloomberg, the co-chairs include Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles; Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia; Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio; Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett-Packard; Robert Iger, CEO of the Walt Disney Co.; J.W. Marriott Jr., CEO of Marriott International; Jim McNerney Jr., CEO of Boeing; and Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal.
Date : June 23 2010
By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL
Mayor Michael Bloomberg will launch Thursday a coalition of mayors and business leaders to advocate for an overhaul of the nation's immigration policy, including legalizing undocumented immigrants and more strictly fining businesses that hire illegal workers.
"Our immigration policy is national suicide," Mr. Bloomberg said at a forum in Midtown Wednesday. "We educate the best and the brightest and then we don't give them a green card—we want people to create jobs but we won't let entrepreneurs from around the world come here."
During his latest inaugural address, Mr. Bloomberg vowed to push to rework the nation's immigration laws in the same way that he waged battle against illegal guns. This effort will be a cornerstone of the mayor's third-term agenda, aides said.
The coalition, the Partnership for a New American Economy, supports developing a secure system for employers to verify employment eligibility and strict penalties for businesses that fail to comply. The group wants to increase opportunities for immigrants to enter the workforce and for foreign students to stay in the country.
The group will advocate for securing the nation's borders and beefing up enforcement to prevent illegal immigration. The coalition supports establishing a legal path for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country now.
To effect decision-making in Washington, the group will issue research reports on the economic impact of immigration, poll public opinion, sponsor forums and potentially launch a media campaign. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, is expected to provide financial support for the group's activities, as he has with his gun group.
One City Hall official said the coalition will try to focus on immigration as a "dollar and cent issue," advocating that open borders help keep the U.S. more competitive.
President Obama has pledged to champion changes to federal immigration policy, but this spring said lawmakers "may not have an appetite" for a grueling debate on immigration this year.
In addition to Mr. Bloomberg, the co-chairs include Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles; Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia; Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio; Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett-Packard; Robert Iger, CEO of the Walt Disney Co.; J.W. Marriott Jr., CEO of Marriott International; Jim McNerney Jr., CEO of Boeing; and Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal.
hot Quotes About Unrequited Love.
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
more...
house In Case of Unrequited Love
kumarc123
11-06 03:46 PM
sreedhar
Keep that GRIN for your later years, this web site is made to help people who are stuck in the immigration limbo.
There are lot of us out there who have their personal decisions at stake.
Keep that GRIN for your later years, this web site is made to help people who are stuck in the immigration limbo.
There are lot of us out there who have their personal decisions at stake.
tattoo quotes about unrequited love
smuggymba
09-22 07:35 PM
Oh My God. These three won't stop, would they.
more...
pictures love, nothing duh, quote,
coopheal
12-06 11:03 PM
bump
dresses quotes about unrequited love
hopefulgc
07-16 01:12 PM
this post is a great example of diplomatically writing a lot and actually saying nothing ... way to go!
Feed from my lawyer
Several sources have now reported that high-level agency discussions on solutions to the July 2007 Visa Bulletin crisis are underway and could result in a new opportunity for certain eligible foreign nationals to submit adjustment of status applications. Apparently, no final decision has been reached, and it is difficult to predict with absolute certainty what the final outcome will be or when an announcement might be made.
__________________________________________________ _______
Several sources have reported that high-level discussions are now taking place within the government concerning a possible solution to the July 2007 Visa Bulletin crisis. As a result of these discussions, there have been indications that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) could change course on its position regarding acceptance of applications for adjustment of status, in whole or in part, and create a new opportunity to submit adjustment cases. Some reports have indicated that cases submitted on July 2 will now be accepted for filing, while other reports have suggested that there will be a completely new window of opportunity to submit cases. Apparently, several options are being considered.
Sources caution that the government has not reached a final decision on this matter, and there are no concrete details concerning the mechanics of any future filing opportunity. It is important to note that in the current climate of swift policy reversals and rampant rumors, it is possible that any tentative agreement on reopening an adjustment submission period could falter
Feed from my lawyer
Several sources have now reported that high-level agency discussions on solutions to the July 2007 Visa Bulletin crisis are underway and could result in a new opportunity for certain eligible foreign nationals to submit adjustment of status applications. Apparently, no final decision has been reached, and it is difficult to predict with absolute certainty what the final outcome will be or when an announcement might be made.
__________________________________________________ _______
Several sources have reported that high-level discussions are now taking place within the government concerning a possible solution to the July 2007 Visa Bulletin crisis. As a result of these discussions, there have been indications that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) could change course on its position regarding acceptance of applications for adjustment of status, in whole or in part, and create a new opportunity to submit adjustment cases. Some reports have indicated that cases submitted on July 2 will now be accepted for filing, while other reports have suggested that there will be a completely new window of opportunity to submit cases. Apparently, several options are being considered.
Sources caution that the government has not reached a final decision on this matter, and there are no concrete details concerning the mechanics of any future filing opportunity. It is important to note that in the current climate of swift policy reversals and rampant rumors, it is possible that any tentative agreement on reopening an adjustment submission period could falter
more...
makeup quotes about unrequited love; quotes about unrequited love. Unrequited Love
mrdelhiite
08-08 09:10 AM
roseball, agree. got same resp from my attorney while filing AOS for my wife
1) employment letter ( just sent original & copies too )
2) I-134 ( convinced that they will need this even for H4 dependent )
3) did not ask for W2's or pay stubs
4) of course original medicals in closed envelope
5) all previous H4 approvals + I94's and color photocopy of entire passport
6) photos and required cheque's
hope mrdelhiite is all set ?
Yup Senthil Thanks a lot for your reply.
-M:D
1) employment letter ( just sent original & copies too )
2) I-134 ( convinced that they will need this even for H4 dependent )
3) did not ask for W2's or pay stubs
4) of course original medicals in closed envelope
5) all previous H4 approvals + I94's and color photocopy of entire passport
6) photos and required cheque's
hope mrdelhiite is all set ?
Yup Senthil Thanks a lot for your reply.
-M:D
girlfriend quotes about unrequited love.
indo_obama
05-19 12:12 PM
Try to apply in another consulate . that might help. Otherwise as everybody has mentioned you are sufferring coz of the indian outsourcing giants who have abused every other VISA
hairstyles Unrequited Love 02
lp2007
01-19 07:40 PM
We are all proud of our accomplishments, EB2 or EB3 or EB1 , the degrees we have earned, the jobs we do and the achievements we have in our career. The relationships we have made and the list goes on.
I don't think being in a category of EB GC queue should define if you can be proud of an EB3 immigrant.
You almost make it sound like did a EB3 applicant become a "slumdog millionaire" ? :)
I don't think being in a category of EB GC queue should define if you can be proud of an EB3 immigrant.
You almost make it sound like did a EB3 applicant become a "slumdog millionaire" ? :)
tinku2009
06-07 12:35 AM
Hi,
I live in CA. I E-file EAD application online. In the instruction pdf file the address is Phoenix,AZ but in the confirmation document it is Lincoln,NE.
Which is the right address to send the supporting documents? :confused:
Please help.
Thanks in Advance.
Tinku
I live in CA. I E-file EAD application online. In the instruction pdf file the address is Phoenix,AZ but in the confirmation document it is Lincoln,NE.
Which is the right address to send the supporting documents? :confused:
Please help.
Thanks in Advance.
Tinku
sathish_gopalan
07-05 04:21 PM
If you leave US for 2 or 3 years and get back through a new employer, does your I140 priority date still holds good. A friend of mine got his I140 approved, left to canada and got his citizenship. He intends to move back and want to know if he can still use his priority date. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment