Sheila Danzig
02-25 09:07 PM
Thank you - that is good to hear.
We did a few this way based on the AIU (Assoc of Indian Universities) documenting that the CA = PGD. The professor showed that the PGD = MA. So far it has worked every time but we still feel the evidence is stronger pointing to CA=BA. Those have all been approved. However, we have done many more as equivalent to BA than MA.
My EB2 was rejected initially but later approved due to Sheila's evalaution of my CA degree equivalent to master's degree. I did not know her but my lawyer insisted to get it done through her. She was good for me.
We did a few this way based on the AIU (Assoc of Indian Universities) documenting that the CA = PGD. The professor showed that the PGD = MA. So far it has worked every time but we still feel the evidence is stronger pointing to CA=BA. Those have all been approved. However, we have done many more as equivalent to BA than MA.
My EB2 was rejected initially but later approved due to Sheila's evalaution of my CA degree equivalent to master's degree. I did not know her but my lawyer insisted to get it done through her. She was good for me.
wallpaper girlfriend amber rose long
tdasara
01-31 02:23 PM
Conversative estimate..
if 100,000 of them file for 485 USCIS would get $90 million!!!
if 100,000 of them file for 485 USCIS would get $90 million!!!
mariusp
04-01 07:03 PM
Sent mine right now to senators of FL.
2011 had long hair atamber rose
logiclife
05-22 04:47 PM
I think I made a mistake by being sarcastic about the bill. Members assume that I have given up hope.
That is not true.
I am going to close this thread.
This was a joke on the bill and meant to point out the injustice. Please ignore this.
I have been to DC 4 times this year in 2007 and I or other core group members are not going to give up on amendments. And Aman has been there every 2 weeks. I am not kidding. He has been there either on Mon-Tue or Thu-Fri 2 times each month doing meetings in Senate offices and educating and finding sponsors. We are not going to give up now after all that hard work just because the bill is ridiculous.
Just because I am taunting the injustice of the bill doesnt mean that I or others have given up. WE ARE in position to put in amendments. How much, I dont know. But pretty sure that we will make a good amount of difference.
That is not true.
I am going to close this thread.
This was a joke on the bill and meant to point out the injustice. Please ignore this.
I have been to DC 4 times this year in 2007 and I or other core group members are not going to give up on amendments. And Aman has been there every 2 weeks. I am not kidding. He has been there either on Mon-Tue or Thu-Fri 2 times each month doing meetings in Senate offices and educating and finding sponsors. We are not going to give up now after all that hard work just because the bill is ridiculous.
Just because I am taunting the injustice of the bill doesnt mean that I or others have given up. WE ARE in position to put in amendments. How much, I dont know. But pretty sure that we will make a good amount of difference.
more...
venkygct
09-04 08:30 PM
Myself and Abhijit booked the flight in United from OAKLAND airport. As we are going to be in DC on Tuesday morning, this is the pretty decent flight with no-stop...We booked this thru www.kayak.com...
Mon, Sep 17, 2007 11:10 PM - OAK to IAD
Tue, Sep 18, 2007 6:52 PM - IAD to OAK
The price came ~$280
Guys what airline could one fly from San Jose? Which one have best connecting times so one can reach and leave at decent time? which airport is close?
Is there a Motel nearby at the relly start point, what time does the rally end, and what flight have people from CA booked for getting back?
:confused:
Mon, Sep 17, 2007 11:10 PM - OAK to IAD
Tue, Sep 18, 2007 6:52 PM - IAD to OAK
The price came ~$280
Guys what airline could one fly from San Jose? Which one have best connecting times so one can reach and leave at decent time? which airport is close?
Is there a Motel nearby at the relly start point, what time does the rally end, and what flight have people from CA booked for getting back?
:confused:
rvr_jcop
02-17 05:18 PM
it probably means.. they are opening each and every mail they have recived and checking if the docs are in order or not..if they are.. they file it...else they send an RFE...
i dont understand..how someone can be so f@#$% dumb as not know this simple procdure..
there are so many posts..i got a LUD what not.... its annoying...
its like.. USCIS touched my lu(n)d..will i get a GC now..
grow up ..
i may have offended some purists on this board.... idgaf..<:-|
I understand your frustration but people here are just wondering if they get LUD, are they also getting RFE, if you see the posts above, lot of fols who sent the apps in that period got LUDs. It doesnt hurt to follow the trend. So be cool ..
And we certainly dont need the 'language' here.
i dont understand..how someone can be so f@#$% dumb as not know this simple procdure..
there are so many posts..i got a LUD what not.... its annoying...
its like.. USCIS touched my lu(n)d..will i get a GC now..
grow up ..
i may have offended some purists on this board.... idgaf..<:-|
I understand your frustration but people here are just wondering if they get LUD, are they also getting RFE, if you see the posts above, lot of fols who sent the apps in that period got LUDs. It doesnt hurt to follow the trend. So be cool ..
And we certainly dont need the 'language' here.
more...
shana04
02-16 01:32 PM
Hi,
I am talking to different lawyers for using AC21 - new position title and functions are almost similar with similar salaries in the same region, old employer might revoke the approved I140 but 180 days are over and I140 is approved - couple lawyers mentioned that the case is straight forward but still mentioned that they are not going to take the case because they decided not to do AC21 in many cases. Reason they mentioned is that underlying I485 is not filed by them and if its rejected for any reason there is a chance of mal-practise suit against them. The fact that they didnt do anything after taking the case might work against them. Their current insurance against mal-practise is not enough to cover these types of instances. I found the argument a bit weird but wondering if anyone else heard same - I heard this from 2 of the 3 lawyers I called locally.
- kishdam
kishdam,
Logically thinking, first thing 485 is your petition.
you are giving them the right to act on your behalf.
There is nothing that an employer has provided except the offer letter.
Now you are using new employers offer letter, how in the world would an old employer sue this attorney. This is your petition and not employers petition.
Scenario:
What if you use G28 representing your self and send a AC21 letter.
Latter (God forbidden this does not happen to any one) but you get RFE, then you choose attorney. You explain that you are represting your self and now need attorneys help. Now who is going to sue this attorney.
This is all B*** S**t to make money or to fear people. I know people who have used G28 representing them selves and got GC. my self I am using a attorney, coz he did not charge more and he said in case you are not satisfied you can always use different lawyer. And all that he has charged is $500.00 and if he is not up to the mark then I would find a differnet attorney. $500 is not a huge sum.
So, good luck and find a better attorney.
I am talking to different lawyers for using AC21 - new position title and functions are almost similar with similar salaries in the same region, old employer might revoke the approved I140 but 180 days are over and I140 is approved - couple lawyers mentioned that the case is straight forward but still mentioned that they are not going to take the case because they decided not to do AC21 in many cases. Reason they mentioned is that underlying I485 is not filed by them and if its rejected for any reason there is a chance of mal-practise suit against them. The fact that they didnt do anything after taking the case might work against them. Their current insurance against mal-practise is not enough to cover these types of instances. I found the argument a bit weird but wondering if anyone else heard same - I heard this from 2 of the 3 lawyers I called locally.
- kishdam
kishdam,
Logically thinking, first thing 485 is your petition.
you are giving them the right to act on your behalf.
There is nothing that an employer has provided except the offer letter.
Now you are using new employers offer letter, how in the world would an old employer sue this attorney. This is your petition and not employers petition.
Scenario:
What if you use G28 representing your self and send a AC21 letter.
Latter (God forbidden this does not happen to any one) but you get RFE, then you choose attorney. You explain that you are represting your self and now need attorneys help. Now who is going to sue this attorney.
This is all B*** S**t to make money or to fear people. I know people who have used G28 representing them selves and got GC. my self I am using a attorney, coz he did not charge more and he said in case you are not satisfied you can always use different lawyer. And all that he has charged is $500.00 and if he is not up to the mark then I would find a differnet attorney. $500 is not a huge sum.
So, good luck and find a better attorney.
2010 gwyneth-paltrow-long-hair-2007
tonyHK12
04-29 03:00 PM
If the immigration processes will get affected because India excluded Boing and Lockheed. .
:D
Actually the SU-30MKI beat both the F-15 and Eurofighter in training with the US and RAF, and is developed jointly by HAL.
Eurofighter has also invited India to partner in its development
:D
Actually the SU-30MKI beat both the F-15 and Eurofighter in training with the US and RAF, and is developed jointly by HAL.
Eurofighter has also invited India to partner in its development
more...
sathish_gopalan
02-14 11:28 AM
My wife is using EAD . I am still on H1 and have not started using EAD. Can I still switch to a new employer with a H1 transfer ?. Or since, she is in EAD, should I do an AC21 only with EAD ?. Thanks..
hair model amber rose
justAnotherFile
04-02 03:17 AM
coun as 2
more...
raj3078
08-22 10:21 AM
It would be interesting to know....Wonder how credible their claim of State Dept official discussed with them about Visa Bulletin dates?
hot Amber+rose+with+hair+long
kaisersose
07-19 01:56 PM
Very good, ask your wife to bring a load of sweets for IV member. ;)
good one!
good one!
more...
house had long when hair, amber
tanu_75
07-29 05:44 PM
:D
Oh ,yes is my dream to move in India or China:D, wait for that, I will let you know.
well this is your time. with eb3 row 2009, you probably are in wait for at least 5 years. Anyway the point is, no country would be stupid enough to stop great talent from coming through to satisfy it's diversity policy. When you are talking about 0.14 million immigrants for a nation of 300 million, that's less than 0.05%. So please take your diversity argument with you and don't let the door hit you on your way out. For this miniscule percentage, the US will lose out on thousands of the best Indian and Chinese engineering/science talent. US's loss, India/China's gain. If this is not an example of an extremely stupid strategic policy then I'm not sure what is.
Oh and by the way, may not be me or you waiting for Indian/Chinese GC's but could be your kid and mine. Let's have this talk again in a decade or two given GDP growth,debt and deficits of US and GDP growths/deficits/market size of India/China.
Oh ,yes is my dream to move in India or China:D, wait for that, I will let you know.
well this is your time. with eb3 row 2009, you probably are in wait for at least 5 years. Anyway the point is, no country would be stupid enough to stop great talent from coming through to satisfy it's diversity policy. When you are talking about 0.14 million immigrants for a nation of 300 million, that's less than 0.05%. So please take your diversity argument with you and don't let the door hit you on your way out. For this miniscule percentage, the US will lose out on thousands of the best Indian and Chinese engineering/science talent. US's loss, India/China's gain. If this is not an example of an extremely stupid strategic policy then I'm not sure what is.
Oh and by the way, may not be me or you waiting for Indian/Chinese GC's but could be your kid and mine. Let's have this talk again in a decade or two given GDP growth,debt and deficits of US and GDP growths/deficits/market size of India/China.
tattoo Model+amber+rose+with+hair
god_bless_you
02-20 06:21 PM
Office of Communications
www.uscis.gov
Questions & Answers February 20, 2008
FBI Name Check
Q1. How has USCIS changed its national security reporting and adjudication
requirements?
A1. USCIS has not changed its background check policies as those policies related to naturalization
applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for applications where the
immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI
name check response is received after approval. For these types of applications, including applications
for lawful permanent residence, the adjudicators will approve the application if it is otherwise approvable
and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days. No application for lawful
permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border
Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably.
Q2. Why is this policy being implemented?
A2. This policy change is in response to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS
align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q3. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of
Homeland Security?
A3. Yes. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI
fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved
favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable information after the
application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings. Lastly, in general these individuals have
been in the United States for some time and have previously been subjected to DHS background checks.
Q4. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A4. Applications included in this policy are:
�� I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
�� I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
�� I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act; and
�� I-698, Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A
of Public Law 99-603).
Q5. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are affected by this policy change?
A3. USCIS is currently aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases
that are otherwise approvable but for the fact that an FBI name check is pending. In a subset of these
case, the FBI name check request that been pending for more than 180 days. USCIS anticipates that the
majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q5. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A5. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
Q6. How long will it take for USCIS to work through these cases affected by the policy change?
A6. USCIS has begun identifying the cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and
service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly.
USCIS anticipates that the majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be
processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring
about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
Q7. USCIS Director Gonzalez pledged in his January 17, 2008, testimony regarding naturalization
backlogs before Congress not to cut corners in the adjudicative process or risk national security in
the interest of production? Does this policy comply with the Director’s pledge?
A7. Yes. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
For those applications for permanent residence that are affected by this policy modification, no
application will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection
Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. USCIS will continue to initiate the FBI
name check requests upon receipt of the applications and will review, monitor and track cases approved
under this policy until the FBI name check is complete. In the unlikely event that DHS receives
actionable information after the application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings.
Q8. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include
other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A8. No.
Q9. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an
INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if they believe their application meets the criteria
of this new policy?
A9. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring about cases affected by this
policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant
pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer
service line at 1-800-375-5283.
Q10. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center if their fingerprints have expired?
A10. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new/updated fingerprint checks are
needed.
– USCIS –
www.uscis.gov
Questions & Answers February 20, 2008
FBI Name Check
Q1. How has USCIS changed its national security reporting and adjudication
requirements?
A1. USCIS has not changed its background check policies as those policies related to naturalization
applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for applications where the
immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI
name check response is received after approval. For these types of applications, including applications
for lawful permanent residence, the adjudicators will approve the application if it is otherwise approvable
and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days. No application for lawful
permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border
Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably.
Q2. Why is this policy being implemented?
A2. This policy change is in response to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS
align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q3. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of
Homeland Security?
A3. Yes. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI
fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved
favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable information after the
application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings. Lastly, in general these individuals have
been in the United States for some time and have previously been subjected to DHS background checks.
Q4. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A4. Applications included in this policy are:
�� I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
�� I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
�� I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act; and
�� I-698, Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A
of Public Law 99-603).
Q5. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are affected by this policy change?
A3. USCIS is currently aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases
that are otherwise approvable but for the fact that an FBI name check is pending. In a subset of these
case, the FBI name check request that been pending for more than 180 days. USCIS anticipates that the
majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q5. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A5. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
Q6. How long will it take for USCIS to work through these cases affected by the policy change?
A6. USCIS has begun identifying the cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and
service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly.
USCIS anticipates that the majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be
processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring
about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
Q7. USCIS Director Gonzalez pledged in his January 17, 2008, testimony regarding naturalization
backlogs before Congress not to cut corners in the adjudicative process or risk national security in
the interest of production? Does this policy comply with the Director’s pledge?
A7. Yes. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
For those applications for permanent residence that are affected by this policy modification, no
application will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection
Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. USCIS will continue to initiate the FBI
name check requests upon receipt of the applications and will review, monitor and track cases approved
under this policy until the FBI name check is complete. In the unlikely event that DHS receives
actionable information after the application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings.
Q8. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include
other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A8. No.
Q9. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an
INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if they believe their application meets the criteria
of this new policy?
A9. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring about cases affected by this
policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant
pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer
service line at 1-800-375-5283.
Q10. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center if their fingerprints have expired?
A10. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new/updated fingerprint checks are
needed.
– USCIS –
more...
pictures Amber+rose+with+hair+long
skp71
03-18 09:31 AM
Instead to lobbying politicians, why don't we file tons of lawsuits againt USCIS for the process delay? July my opinion.
dresses Kanye Takes Amber Back!
illinois_alum
07-24 02:33 PM
Self E-Filed for wife on June 24'08
FP: July 16'08
No word on approval yet!
PD: Feb 18 '06
I-140 Approved June '06
I-485 Filed July '07
FP: July 16'08
No word on approval yet!
PD: Feb 18 '06
I-140 Approved June '06
I-485 Filed July '07
more...
makeup Amber+rose+with+hair+long
hindu_king
06-01 02:49 PM
Below are similar bills that were introduced last year (pulled from the opencongress webiste). These bills didnt go anywhere. They just ended as "referred to judiciary commitee" or "refered to subcomittee on immigration". How will this bill be different from these bills? I got a feeling nothing will happen in the end, not even a vote in the senate. I hope I'm wrong.
H.R.5921 High Skilled Per Country Level Eliminatio... [4]
H.R.5882 To recapture employment-based immigrant v... [4]
S.3084 A bill to amend the Immigration and Natio... [2]
H.R.6039 To amend the Immigration and Nationality ... [2]
:confused:
H.R.5921 High Skilled Per Country Level Eliminatio... [4]
H.R.5882 To recapture employment-based immigrant v... [4]
S.3084 A bill to amend the Immigration and Natio... [2]
H.R.6039 To amend the Immigration and Nationality ... [2]
:confused:
girlfriend photos, andmar amber rose
gk_2000
07-28 08:08 PM
Guys
I wonder if and why IV missed a chance to push our questions into this forum. Please take a look, from whitehouse website:
What You Missed: Open for Questions Roundtable on Comprehensive Immigration Reform | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/what-you-missed-open-questions-roundtable-comprehensive-immigration-reform#vseek525)
I wonder if and why IV missed a chance to push our questions into this forum. Please take a look, from whitehouse website:
What You Missed: Open for Questions Roundtable on Comprehensive Immigration Reform | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/what-you-missed-open-questions-roundtable-comprehensive-immigration-reform#vseek525)
hairstyles tattoo Amber Rose Lets It All
radhay
06-01 11:34 AM
done
Abhinaym
07-28 09:30 PM
That was a very illogical reply to the per-country limit question. How come a large number of people from certain countries automatically eliminate people from smaller countries from getting green cards? That's an extremely dumb way of looking at it.
If you remove the limits, yes most of the cards will go to people from India and China, THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE #$@!$ING BACKLOGGED FOR DECADES DUE TO THE LIMITS!!
If you remove the limits, yes most of the cards will go to people from India and China, THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE #$@!$ING BACKLOGGED FOR DECADES DUE TO THE LIMITS!!
natrajs
08-06 04:37 PM
Freakin - more than 50 people from 2004 are waiting and the same number of people from 2006 get approved!!!
United States Confusing and Incompetent Service - USCIS
'Service' my a!@#$%
EB2-I RIR - NJ , BEC - Philly Approved on 12/20/2006 - PD - 06/18/04
I140 - Approved on 06/04/07
RD : 08/08/07 - TSC
ND : 09/28/07
FP : 11/1/07
I485 : !@#????????????? - I don't know (planning to buy Mega million and Power ball lotto with my own algorithm which I believe that I have chance to win, How ever I can not predict the USCIS process)
United States Confusing and Incompetent Service - USCIS
'Service' my a!@#$%
EB2-I RIR - NJ , BEC - Philly Approved on 12/20/2006 - PD - 06/18/04
I140 - Approved on 06/04/07
RD : 08/08/07 - TSC
ND : 09/28/07
FP : 11/1/07
I485 : !@#????????????? - I don't know (planning to buy Mega million and Power ball lotto with my own algorithm which I believe that I have chance to win, How ever I can not predict the USCIS process)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar