vimouze
07-24 12:05 AM
Hello everyone,
I'm new to this forum, but this is a great source of information.
Here is my situation. My wife is a US citizen and we've been married for 2 year and 3 months, and I have the conditional green card for almost 2 years. I can't say this has been the best time of my life. She has kids of her own, and we ran into so much problem. And we both wish get a divorce. My conditional green card is expiring, and I know a divorce would affect my status. But seems like I can't take this anymore. During this time, I've been with another us citizen. She understand my situation, and has always supported me. I do want to marry her after my divorce. So, I'm seeking for some advice from everybody on what I should do in this situation. Thank you
I'm new to this forum, but this is a great source of information.
Here is my situation. My wife is a US citizen and we've been married for 2 year and 3 months, and I have the conditional green card for almost 2 years. I can't say this has been the best time of my life. She has kids of her own, and we ran into so much problem. And we both wish get a divorce. My conditional green card is expiring, and I know a divorce would affect my status. But seems like I can't take this anymore. During this time, I've been with another us citizen. She understand my situation, and has always supported me. I do want to marry her after my divorce. So, I'm seeking for some advice from everybody on what I should do in this situation. Thank you
wallpaper prom hairstyles 2011 curly to
kumar2203
07-29 11:33 AM
Hello ,
My EB3- 485 is pending from June 07. I am on H-1 and my employer decided not to file 7 th year extension and asking me to use EAD.
If I change employer using EAD (AC21) , can new employer file GC in EB2 (EB3 priority date 2005) ( not H-1 transfer)
thanks for your help
My EB3- 485 is pending from June 07. I am on H-1 and my employer decided not to file 7 th year extension and asking me to use EAD.
If I change employer using EAD (AC21) , can new employer file GC in EB2 (EB3 priority date 2005) ( not H-1 transfer)
thanks for your help
Macaca
07-22 05:33 PM
For Real Drama, Senate Should Engage In a True Filibuster (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/ornstein/19415-1.html) By Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2007
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
2011 ands pin-up hairstyles
Macaca
05-19 07:04 AM
House GOP Uses Procedural Tactic To Frustrate Democratic Majority Motion to Recommit Employed to Delay or Alter Legislation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801697.html?hpid=topnews) By Lyndsey Layton (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lyndsey+layton/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, May 19, 2007
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
more...
kirupa
07-19 10:51 PM
Added!
newwife10
02-09 09:54 AM
Hi,
I was told by my lawyer that I am eligible for the 245i and we are getting the paper work together. Here is my story:
My aunt filed for the i 130 in May 18,1994 for my mum (aunt's sister and her family). It was approved in the same year. While waiting for the priority date I aged out. I was in the US on a F1 visa and went out of status. We consulted many lawyers and the one we retained told me that we can apply for an F1 visa from a i 20 I had got from a school and we filled the paperwork and waited for over a year and half before it was denied. Then the lawyer told me I can apply for AOS through the 245i. We are going to apply for i 130 next month. I am getting ready to pay another retainer to the same lawyer and invest a decade in this process. I would appreciate any information.
Thanks
I was told by my lawyer that I am eligible for the 245i and we are getting the paper work together. Here is my story:
My aunt filed for the i 130 in May 18,1994 for my mum (aunt's sister and her family). It was approved in the same year. While waiting for the priority date I aged out. I was in the US on a F1 visa and went out of status. We consulted many lawyers and the one we retained told me that we can apply for an F1 visa from a i 20 I had got from a school and we filled the paperwork and waited for over a year and half before it was denied. Then the lawyer told me I can apply for AOS through the 245i. We are going to apply for i 130 next month. I am getting ready to pay another retainer to the same lawyer and invest a decade in this process. I would appreciate any information.
Thanks
more...
jeevan
05-16 09:50 AM
Gurus plz suggest me on above case
2010 Quince Hair Style Finder:
smarth
10-15 07:09 PM
Hi,
I applied for AP(I-131) to Nebraska Service center last month on Sep 30th. Howmany days will it take usually to get the approval from this center?
Thanks
I applied for AP(I-131) to Nebraska Service center last month on Sep 30th. Howmany days will it take usually to get the approval from this center?
Thanks
more...
Joe77
07-27 10:05 PM
Hi,
perm filed on 03/13/2010. Today my employer HR emailed me that my case was selected for audit. They didn't give me any letter confirming that my case is really selected for audit, on the other hand instructed me to sign ETA form 9089 and send back the original form. ETA form has OMB Approval : 1205-0451. Does that mean that my case has been approved and my employer is lying to me? I read somewhere case filed electronically are needed to be signed and original form be sent back for final processing.
Please advice.
Regards
Joe
perm filed on 03/13/2010. Today my employer HR emailed me that my case was selected for audit. They didn't give me any letter confirming that my case is really selected for audit, on the other hand instructed me to sign ETA form 9089 and send back the original form. ETA form has OMB Approval : 1205-0451. Does that mean that my case has been approved and my employer is lying to me? I read somewhere case filed electronically are needed to be signed and original form be sent back for final processing.
Please advice.
Regards
Joe
hair updo hairstyles
semiGator
12-06 02:24 PM
Have you ever been refused access to the room where your client was being interviewed by USCIS? Have you ever been told that you are not allowed to speak while ICE questioned your client? Has CBP ever refused to allow your client to call you during a complicated secondary inspection?
AILA and the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center are undertaking a nationwide outreach effort to gather information about procedures and trends encountered by attorneys when providing representation to clients during various types of interviews with DHS agencies. The scope of this survey does not include right to counsel issues in the EOIR context. Please take a moment to complete this survey, which is designed to provide AILA and the American Immigration Council with an overview of your experiences.
To take the survey, visit Right to Representation Before DHS Survey (http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=33195&linkid=223447)
AILA and the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center are undertaking a nationwide outreach effort to gather information about procedures and trends encountered by attorneys when providing representation to clients during various types of interviews with DHS agencies. The scope of this survey does not include right to counsel issues in the EOIR context. Please take a moment to complete this survey, which is designed to provide AILA and the American Immigration Council with an overview of your experiences.
To take the survey, visit Right to Representation Before DHS Survey (http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=33195&linkid=223447)
more...
vinoddas
02-06 09:20 PM
My friend has his I-485 filed and has got EAD/AP, but the priority date is so behind, that he has no chance of getting a green card before his marriage. So, as I understand he should be able to bring his wife on H4 (as long as he maintains H1). My question is: does he have to re-file for I-485 to include his wife and if so will the priority date remain the same as the first application?
hot Best Hairstyles For Men With
mikec
05-15 08:33 PM
hello, i really need some one to clarify this information for me.
when i first started working with my company i did not have work authorization and basically said i am a US citizen, i never had any problems for 4 years, i am a permanent residence now and got my green card this year. the company now nows that i lied 4 years ago when i got hired and i was not allowed to work but am fully eligible to work now becaue of change in status to PR. can the company resubmit a new i9 form with the correct information and if i will be in any trouble with USCIS.
What is the law for someone who worked illegaly but got his or her status changed to PR.
THANK YOU
when i first started working with my company i did not have work authorization and basically said i am a US citizen, i never had any problems for 4 years, i am a permanent residence now and got my green card this year. the company now nows that i lied 4 years ago when i got hired and i was not allowed to work but am fully eligible to work now becaue of change in status to PR. can the company resubmit a new i9 form with the correct information and if i will be in any trouble with USCIS.
What is the law for someone who worked illegaly but got his or her status changed to PR.
THANK YOU
more...
house its really Wyatt hairstyle
desigirl
04-23 11:41 AM
I sent my I-140 on Apr 16, premium processing. How long does the premium processing take? I have to leave for India in a weeks time, and wanted to know if I would receive it in time.
tattoo long hairstyles with bangs and
Becks
08-27 07:00 PM
They release recepting update on Fridays. But they missed last week.
more...
pictures hairstyles for short hair for
RadioactveChimp
04-16 12:03 PM
explain to me what this s, I like it, but needs some explaination =)
dresses david beckham hairstyles
ajmh96
05-21 10:34 PM
Hello Friends,
In January I filed i765 (17 month extension) and I received the 797C notice which had a typographical error (Birth date error caused by USCIS), so I informed USCIS and got that corrected. I received a letter stating that the birth date has been corrected but eventually, when I received the approved EAD card, the error was still there. Then, I reapplied the i765 form with all the necessary docs and the original EAD card, but somehow, it got lost. I applied the whole application set again but this time with the photocopy of the EAD card, the error proofs and a cover letter but no check/money order.
It's been 1 month and I have not received any updates on my case. I called USCIS and they don't have any updates on the case. Do you think USCIS can cause a problem in approving my application and can I still work while my application is still pending.
Ajay Malhotra
In January I filed i765 (17 month extension) and I received the 797C notice which had a typographical error (Birth date error caused by USCIS), so I informed USCIS and got that corrected. I received a letter stating that the birth date has been corrected but eventually, when I received the approved EAD card, the error was still there. Then, I reapplied the i765 form with all the necessary docs and the original EAD card, but somehow, it got lost. I applied the whole application set again but this time with the photocopy of the EAD card, the error proofs and a cover letter but no check/money order.
It's been 1 month and I have not received any updates on my case. I called USCIS and they don't have any updates on the case. Do you think USCIS can cause a problem in approving my application and can I still work while my application is still pending.
Ajay Malhotra
more...
makeup new finder window and one
kmura
08-26 10:25 AM
Any of the july filers get EAD from nebraska centre??pls enter details here
girlfriend Hairstyle Finder: The Hairstyle Select
joreal
08-25 04:45 PM
Is there any place where i can get information on whether i can get my stamping in canada or not ?
hairstyles get zoe american Hairstyle
theflash
01-27 06:10 PM
This is cool, now only if jelly fish could move and its tentacles follow it that would be awesome.
anishNewbie
09-09 12:15 PM
Hello every1,
A SVP of 7 equals 2-4 years of education/training or experience (A job zone of 4 is treated as an SVP of 7.0 < 8.0).
A SVP of 8 equals 4-10 years of education/training or experience (A job zone of 5 is treated as an SVP of 8 & above).
A MS Degree is calculated as equal to a BS +2 or 4 years experience and no education.
NOW, BS + 5 / MS + 0 -- Minimum qualification for EB2..
So now a person working in Job Zone 4, which requires minimum of BS + (2-4) experience would get an entry level job at OES Level Wage 1.
So Can we conclude from this that a job which falls under job zone 4 which needs to applied for EB2(basically raise SVP to 8) would have a minimum OES Level 2 wage ????
Thank you...
A SVP of 7 equals 2-4 years of education/training or experience (A job zone of 4 is treated as an SVP of 7.0 < 8.0).
A SVP of 8 equals 4-10 years of education/training or experience (A job zone of 5 is treated as an SVP of 8 & above).
A MS Degree is calculated as equal to a BS +2 or 4 years experience and no education.
NOW, BS + 5 / MS + 0 -- Minimum qualification for EB2..
So now a person working in Job Zone 4, which requires minimum of BS + (2-4) experience would get an entry level job at OES Level Wage 1.
So Can we conclude from this that a job which falls under job zone 4 which needs to applied for EB2(basically raise SVP to 8) would have a minimum OES Level 2 wage ????
Thank you...
voldemar
06-25 05:31 PM
Does someone can throw light at:
Can I track EAD online ? And which address is EAD delivered at (Lawyers or Home address)?
Thanks
Yes, you can track EAD online. All you need is case number. EAD will come to applicant address.
Can I track EAD online ? And which address is EAD delivered at (Lawyers or Home address)?
Thanks
Yes, you can track EAD online. All you need is case number. EAD will come to applicant address.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий