KKtexas
11-25 04:31 PM
vxb2004,
Was there any LUD on ur 485 after u sent AC21 Documents in Apr?.
Was there any LUD on ur 485 after u sent AC21 Documents in Apr?.
wallpaper super cute Selena Gomez!
cdeneo
03-30 03:41 AM
What is the best way to change representation of one's case from the company lawyer to Self? Also, how long does it take for this change to take effect?
I am in a similar situation as mentioned on this thread and would like any communication regarding my case from USCIS to come to me and not the lawyer who filed my I-485 since I am leaving my current employer.
Any insight into how to tackle this would be very helpful. Thanks!
Usually in that instance, you should receive a NOID from the USCIS. It goes to your lawyer. Which is why, if you are absolutely sure that your employer will revoke the I-140, it is better to file for AC21 with your own lawyer.(Not the company lawyer). In such a case, even if USCIS sends a notice to deny, it will reach your lawyer rather than the company's lawyer
I am in a similar situation as mentioned on this thread and would like any communication regarding my case from USCIS to come to me and not the lawyer who filed my I-485 since I am leaving my current employer.
Any insight into how to tackle this would be very helpful. Thanks!
Usually in that instance, you should receive a NOID from the USCIS. It goes to your lawyer. Which is why, if you are absolutely sure that your employer will revoke the I-140, it is better to file for AC21 with your own lawyer.(Not the company lawyer). In such a case, even if USCIS sends a notice to deny, it will reach your lawyer rather than the company's lawyer
mhathi
05-16 11:19 AM
I have called all the members identified on the thread. They
were all nice to talk to and most of them said that they were
receiving a lot of calls regarding these bills. Many completed my
request for me :D
Let's all call and make these bills a reality.
P.S. I also called Sen. Menendez regarding the Murray amendment but
had to leave a voicemail.
were all nice to talk to and most of them said that they were
receiving a lot of calls regarding these bills. Many completed my
request for me :D
Let's all call and make these bills a reality.
P.S. I also called Sen. Menendez regarding the Murray amendment but
had to leave a voicemail.
2011 selena gomez kca, demi lovato
jnraajan
03-20 05:19 PM
The best time for seeing any good result for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of 2008. Precisely, from Nov-02-2008 till the day, the new president swears in.
If you go through the records of the past presidencies, you can see one interesting thing: Whenever the presidency changes from one person to another, that period is the best to make any sweeping changes that can be done administratively. Bill clinton passed many executive orders during the last 1.5 months of his presidency. The reason for this is: the ruling party will not oppose this as the election is over. The new president will also not oppose this as the election is over and the bad blood of any of this action will not fall on him as well. On top of that, the new president need not address any contentious issues as an initiative from his side. If the old president started something, he could always portray that, he is making the situation better.
The best example for this kind of presidential action: There is a proposal from many parts of the political spectrum to lift the cuban embargo. No one is ready to do that as everyone is scared how it will affect them. If the passing president does this during the last 1.5 months, the blame will only fall on the president and it will not fall on the party or the opposition or on the new president. At the same time, the passing president will be portrayed in the history as someone who did some sweeping change.
Once the new president swears in, he won't be in a position to do sweeping changes as there is always a concern for second term, approval rating etc etc.
Well, the best time for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of this year, after Nov 2.
It is true what you are saying, but only partially. The outgoing President cannot change the laws. He can only do what could be an administrative fix. So, lobbying for these administrative fixes is the campaign that we already started. Hopefully, The President can do that.
If you go through the records of the past presidencies, you can see one interesting thing: Whenever the presidency changes from one person to another, that period is the best to make any sweeping changes that can be done administratively. Bill clinton passed many executive orders during the last 1.5 months of his presidency. The reason for this is: the ruling party will not oppose this as the election is over. The new president will also not oppose this as the election is over and the bad blood of any of this action will not fall on him as well. On top of that, the new president need not address any contentious issues as an initiative from his side. If the old president started something, he could always portray that, he is making the situation better.
The best example for this kind of presidential action: There is a proposal from many parts of the political spectrum to lift the cuban embargo. No one is ready to do that as everyone is scared how it will affect them. If the passing president does this during the last 1.5 months, the blame will only fall on the president and it will not fall on the party or the opposition or on the new president. At the same time, the passing president will be portrayed in the history as someone who did some sweeping change.
Once the new president swears in, he won't be in a position to do sweeping changes as there is always a concern for second term, approval rating etc etc.
Well, the best time for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of this year, after Nov 2.
It is true what you are saying, but only partially. The outgoing President cannot change the laws. He can only do what could be an administrative fix. So, lobbying for these administrative fixes is the campaign that we already started. Hopefully, The President can do that.
more...
mugwump
03-13 10:17 AM
I apologize in advance if people think my post is inappropriate for this thread, but I couldn�t find the older thread I was looking for.
I was wondering what happened with the discussion about the potential impacts of Canadian Immigration on US GC process. I had read before that UCSIC might consider it as an abandonment of the 485 application.
I had applied for canadian immig as a back up and got a medical request form from Canadian Consul. I am planning to go ahead with it. Was hoping to find out if people have been landing in Canada in this post 485 filing world??
Responses will be appreciated.
I was wondering what happened with the discussion about the potential impacts of Canadian Immigration on US GC process. I had read before that UCSIC might consider it as an abandonment of the 485 application.
I had applied for canadian immig as a back up and got a medical request form from Canadian Consul. I am planning to go ahead with it. Was hoping to find out if people have been landing in Canada in this post 485 filing world??
Responses will be appreciated.
sobers
02-09 04:10 PM
While we all know loony loo tends to primarily go after illegals, we also are well aware of his anti-immigration stance and anti-H1B tirade.
Southern Poverty Law Center, a respected civil rights group from the MLK era, operates an "Immigration Watch".
This is what they said about him:
Broken Record
Lou Dobbs' daily 'Broken Borders' CNN segment has focused on immigration for years. But there's one issue Dobbs just won't take on.
Lou Dobbs is a genial sort, a pleasant-faced CNN anchorman who regularly presents himself as standing up for American working men and women against those who would injure them. Hosting "Lou Dobbs Tonight" for a prime-time hour every weekday, he is also well known and powerful. So when Dobbs focuses on an issue, millions of Americans learn just what it is that Dobbs thinks they should know.
For more than two years now, Dobbs has served up a populist approach to immigration on nightly segments of his newscast entitled "Broken Borders." He has relentlessly covered the issue, although hardly from a traditional news perspective -- Dobbs favors clamping down on illegal immigration, and his "reporting" never fails to make that clear. He has covered the same issues, and the same anti-immigration leaders, time after time after time. In recent months, Dobbs has run countless upbeat reports on the "citizen border patrols" that have sprung up around the country since last April's Minuteman Project, a paramilitary effort to seal the Arizona border.
But there's one thing Lou Dobbs won't do. No matter what others report about the movement, Dobbs has failed to present mounting and persistent evidence of anti-Hispanic racism in anti-immigration groups and citizen border patrols.
It's not that Dobbs hasn't allowed a pro-immigration activist or two to complain about efforts like the Minuteman Project ("vigilantes," according to President Bush), or even that he has made racist statements on his show. What the anchorman has done is repeatedly decline to present the evidence that links these groups to racism, calling the very idea "mind-boggling." On his July 29 show, he called the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which he said he liked in other ways, "despicable" and "reprehensible" for saying otherwise.
Consider some of what Dobbs has failed to report, despite the fact that in almost every case these developments were reported widely elsewhere:
GLENN SPENCER, head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, has been interviewed at least twice on the show, on Jan. 7 and June 4, 2004. Spencer's Web site is jammed with anti-Mexican vitriol and he pushes the idea that the Mexican government is involved in a secret plot to take over the Southwest -- facts never mentioned on Dobbs' show. Spencer's group is regarded as a hate group by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. Spencer has spoken at least twice to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, which has described blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity," and once to American Renaissance, a group that contends that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Dobbs has never reported those ties, or mentioned Spencer's more wild-eyed contentions, such as his prediction that "thousands will die" in a supposedly forthcoming Mexican invasion. His CNN colleague Wolf Blitzer, on the hand, featured Spencer on his own show but reported Mexico's official response and SPLC's hate group designation.
In late 2004, it was revealed that the new head of a national advisory board to Protect Arizona Now, an anti-immigration organization, was a long-time white supremacist who was also an editorial adviser to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens. Although VIRGINIA ABERNETHY's controversial selection was reported prominently in virtually every Arizona paper -- and despite the fact that Dobbs heavily covered the anti-immigration referendum that Protect Arizona Now was advocating -- Dobbs never mentioned the affair at all.
A man named JOE MCCUTCHEN was quoted last April as part of a feature on the Minuteman Project, described by Dobbs as "a terrific group of concerned, caring Americans." No mention was made of the fact that McCutchen, who heads up an anti-immigration group called Protect Arkansas Now, had written a whole series of anti-Semitic letters to the editor and given a speech to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- facts revealed the prior January by SPLC, causing Arkansas' Republican governor to denounce McCutchen's group.
This August, BILL PARMLEY, a Minuteman leader in Goliad County, Texas, quit the group because of what he described as widespread racism. Similarly, in September, newspapers reported that another Texas Minuteman, Janet Ahrens, had resigned because members "wanted to shoot the taco meat." Dobbs never mentioned either of these people, who were featured prominently elsewhere.
On Oct. 4, Dobbs had PAUL STREITZ, a co-founder of Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, as a guest on his show. Streitz denounced Mayor John DeStefano Jr. for "turning New Haven into a banana republic" by favoring identification cards for undocumented workers. Two days later, newspapers revealed that two of the group's other founders had just quit, saying Streitz had led it in a racially charged direction. Dobbs has never reported this.
BARBARA COE, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, was quoted on a show last March bitterly attacking Home Depot for "betray[ing] Americans," apparently because Hispanic day laborers often gather in front of the store looking for work. Not mentioned were her group, listed by the SPLC as a hate group, or the fact that she routinely refers to Mexicans as "savages." Coe recently described herself as a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a "white pride" group formed from the remnants of the segregationist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s that were once described by Thurgood Marshal as "the uptown Klan." She also told The Denver Post in November that she had given a speech to the group.
CHRIS SIMCOX, co-founder of the Minuteman Project and a top national anti-immigration leader, was arrested in 2003 by federal park rangers for carrying a weapon illegally while tracking border-crossers on federal parkland. While Simcox has been repeatedly interviewed on his show, Dobbs has failed to mention that arrest or bigoted anti-Hispanic comments Simcox made to the Intelligence Report several years ago.
Although Dobbs has steered clear of the racist comments that some of his guests have made elsewhere, he has warned of "illegal aliens who not only threaten our economy and security, but also our health and well-being," according to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a media monitor. In 2003, FAIR added, a reporter on Dobbs' show grossly mischaracterized a National Academy of Sciences report. The report found that immigrants provided a net gain of $1 billion to $10 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product, but the CNN reporter said the report had found the economic impact of immigrants worked out to a net loss of up to $10 billion.
Dobbs is revered in anti-immigration quarters and on the far right generally. He is the winner of the 2004 Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration, given by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). CIS claims to be a "nonpartisan research institute," but in fact is a thinly disguised anti-immigration organization. The 2005 Katz Award went to the immigration beat reporter for The Washington Times, a hard-right newspaper based in Washington, D.C.
In general, Lou Dobbs has declined to report salient negative facts about anti-immigration leaders he approves of, or simply avoided mentioning certain of their views -- notably the conspiracy theories propounded by people like Spencer.
Still, Dobbs is hardly immune to the lure of the weird. Last September, he offered up Idaho meteorologist Scott Stevens as a guest on his show. Stevens had just left an Idaho television news program immediately after telling viewers of a bizarre theory that Hurricane Katrina was caused by unknown evildoers. "Terrorists were engaging in a type of eco-terrorism where they could alter the climate, set off earthquakes and volcanoes," he told Dobbs. Stevens said they were using "scalar waves," invented by the Japanese, to attack America with Category 5 storms.
"Intriguing assertion," Dobbs concluded at the end of the interview. Much the same might be said, and in the same spirit, about the news "reporting" that Dobbs presents as he doggedly explores and supports the anti-immigration movement.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589
Southern Poverty Law Center, a respected civil rights group from the MLK era, operates an "Immigration Watch".
This is what they said about him:
Broken Record
Lou Dobbs' daily 'Broken Borders' CNN segment has focused on immigration for years. But there's one issue Dobbs just won't take on.
Lou Dobbs is a genial sort, a pleasant-faced CNN anchorman who regularly presents himself as standing up for American working men and women against those who would injure them. Hosting "Lou Dobbs Tonight" for a prime-time hour every weekday, he is also well known and powerful. So when Dobbs focuses on an issue, millions of Americans learn just what it is that Dobbs thinks they should know.
For more than two years now, Dobbs has served up a populist approach to immigration on nightly segments of his newscast entitled "Broken Borders." He has relentlessly covered the issue, although hardly from a traditional news perspective -- Dobbs favors clamping down on illegal immigration, and his "reporting" never fails to make that clear. He has covered the same issues, and the same anti-immigration leaders, time after time after time. In recent months, Dobbs has run countless upbeat reports on the "citizen border patrols" that have sprung up around the country since last April's Minuteman Project, a paramilitary effort to seal the Arizona border.
But there's one thing Lou Dobbs won't do. No matter what others report about the movement, Dobbs has failed to present mounting and persistent evidence of anti-Hispanic racism in anti-immigration groups and citizen border patrols.
It's not that Dobbs hasn't allowed a pro-immigration activist or two to complain about efforts like the Minuteman Project ("vigilantes," according to President Bush), or even that he has made racist statements on his show. What the anchorman has done is repeatedly decline to present the evidence that links these groups to racism, calling the very idea "mind-boggling." On his July 29 show, he called the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which he said he liked in other ways, "despicable" and "reprehensible" for saying otherwise.
Consider some of what Dobbs has failed to report, despite the fact that in almost every case these developments were reported widely elsewhere:
GLENN SPENCER, head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, has been interviewed at least twice on the show, on Jan. 7 and June 4, 2004. Spencer's Web site is jammed with anti-Mexican vitriol and he pushes the idea that the Mexican government is involved in a secret plot to take over the Southwest -- facts never mentioned on Dobbs' show. Spencer's group is regarded as a hate group by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. Spencer has spoken at least twice to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, which has described blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity," and once to American Renaissance, a group that contends that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Dobbs has never reported those ties, or mentioned Spencer's more wild-eyed contentions, such as his prediction that "thousands will die" in a supposedly forthcoming Mexican invasion. His CNN colleague Wolf Blitzer, on the hand, featured Spencer on his own show but reported Mexico's official response and SPLC's hate group designation.
In late 2004, it was revealed that the new head of a national advisory board to Protect Arizona Now, an anti-immigration organization, was a long-time white supremacist who was also an editorial adviser to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens. Although VIRGINIA ABERNETHY's controversial selection was reported prominently in virtually every Arizona paper -- and despite the fact that Dobbs heavily covered the anti-immigration referendum that Protect Arizona Now was advocating -- Dobbs never mentioned the affair at all.
A man named JOE MCCUTCHEN was quoted last April as part of a feature on the Minuteman Project, described by Dobbs as "a terrific group of concerned, caring Americans." No mention was made of the fact that McCutchen, who heads up an anti-immigration group called Protect Arkansas Now, had written a whole series of anti-Semitic letters to the editor and given a speech to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- facts revealed the prior January by SPLC, causing Arkansas' Republican governor to denounce McCutchen's group.
This August, BILL PARMLEY, a Minuteman leader in Goliad County, Texas, quit the group because of what he described as widespread racism. Similarly, in September, newspapers reported that another Texas Minuteman, Janet Ahrens, had resigned because members "wanted to shoot the taco meat." Dobbs never mentioned either of these people, who were featured prominently elsewhere.
On Oct. 4, Dobbs had PAUL STREITZ, a co-founder of Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, as a guest on his show. Streitz denounced Mayor John DeStefano Jr. for "turning New Haven into a banana republic" by favoring identification cards for undocumented workers. Two days later, newspapers revealed that two of the group's other founders had just quit, saying Streitz had led it in a racially charged direction. Dobbs has never reported this.
BARBARA COE, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, was quoted on a show last March bitterly attacking Home Depot for "betray[ing] Americans," apparently because Hispanic day laborers often gather in front of the store looking for work. Not mentioned were her group, listed by the SPLC as a hate group, or the fact that she routinely refers to Mexicans as "savages." Coe recently described herself as a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a "white pride" group formed from the remnants of the segregationist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s that were once described by Thurgood Marshal as "the uptown Klan." She also told The Denver Post in November that she had given a speech to the group.
CHRIS SIMCOX, co-founder of the Minuteman Project and a top national anti-immigration leader, was arrested in 2003 by federal park rangers for carrying a weapon illegally while tracking border-crossers on federal parkland. While Simcox has been repeatedly interviewed on his show, Dobbs has failed to mention that arrest or bigoted anti-Hispanic comments Simcox made to the Intelligence Report several years ago.
Although Dobbs has steered clear of the racist comments that some of his guests have made elsewhere, he has warned of "illegal aliens who not only threaten our economy and security, but also our health and well-being," according to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a media monitor. In 2003, FAIR added, a reporter on Dobbs' show grossly mischaracterized a National Academy of Sciences report. The report found that immigrants provided a net gain of $1 billion to $10 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product, but the CNN reporter said the report had found the economic impact of immigrants worked out to a net loss of up to $10 billion.
Dobbs is revered in anti-immigration quarters and on the far right generally. He is the winner of the 2004 Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration, given by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). CIS claims to be a "nonpartisan research institute," but in fact is a thinly disguised anti-immigration organization. The 2005 Katz Award went to the immigration beat reporter for The Washington Times, a hard-right newspaper based in Washington, D.C.
In general, Lou Dobbs has declined to report salient negative facts about anti-immigration leaders he approves of, or simply avoided mentioning certain of their views -- notably the conspiracy theories propounded by people like Spencer.
Still, Dobbs is hardly immune to the lure of the weird. Last September, he offered up Idaho meteorologist Scott Stevens as a guest on his show. Stevens had just left an Idaho television news program immediately after telling viewers of a bizarre theory that Hurricane Katrina was caused by unknown evildoers. "Terrorists were engaging in a type of eco-terrorism where they could alter the climate, set off earthquakes and volcanoes," he told Dobbs. Stevens said they were using "scalar waves," invented by the Japanese, to attack America with Category 5 storms.
"Intriguing assertion," Dobbs concluded at the end of the interview. Much the same might be said, and in the same spirit, about the news "reporting" that Dobbs presents as he doggedly explores and supports the anti-immigration movement.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589
more...
willigetagc
08-17 02:32 PM
just remember to carefully preserve all payslips, email communications, and all other docs from this period. If and when you file for GC, you MAY need these docs.
But, otherwise, your case is straightforward. As long as you send the H1 transfer to CIS before you are terminated/resign from B, you status will continue uninterrupted... So you are ok.
But, otherwise, your case is straightforward. As long as you send the H1 transfer to CIS before you are terminated/resign from B, you status will continue uninterrupted... So you are ok.
2010 selena gomez kca awards.
jonty_11
08-15 01:16 PM
see my post - 4th above...and you will know why u got a red..!!!!!!!!!!!
more...
Waitnwait
12-20 08:58 PM
I just read at TOI that Dr Manmohan Singh's daughter Amrit Singh is a staff attorney at ACLU.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/PMs_daughter_puts_White_House_in_the_dock/articleshow/2639327.cms
Can she be of any help to IV's Agenda. Has IV core considered contacting her.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/PMs_daughter_puts_White_House_in_the_dock/articleshow/2639327.cms
Can she be of any help to IV's Agenda. Has IV core considered contacting her.
hair selena gomez kca 2010.
dc2007
07-05 10:28 PM
Thank you all for your help/suggestions. I'll try to add my wife in my employer plan, may be with lower premium and higher deductible for now. Also there is this insurance I found called 'HTH global citizen' that covers pregnancy after 12 months.
My suggestion is: "Go for HIGHER PREMIUM and LOW DEDUCTIBLE", other wise go for $3000 package.
But I can tell you even if doctor is saying $3000, you might be ending paying a lot more than that. Its medical, and I hope everything should go fine. But in case of any complexities, if you don't have insurance, you will end up paying like more than 10K (even in $3000 package).
Go for full coverage and add your wife to your insurance. This is my suggestion.
Good Luck
My suggestion is: "Go for HIGHER PREMIUM and LOW DEDUCTIBLE", other wise go for $3000 package.
But I can tell you even if doctor is saying $3000, you might be ending paying a lot more than that. Its medical, and I hope everything should go fine. But in case of any complexities, if you don't have insurance, you will end up paying like more than 10K (even in $3000 package).
Go for full coverage and add your wife to your insurance. This is my suggestion.
Good Luck
more...
go_guy123
01-11 09:47 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
hot selena gomez kids choice
kaisersose
07-26 03:20 PM
Can one change status without AOS receipt. I saw I 539 (change of status) form and It is written to gove more specifics if you applied for permanent residency
Just mention you applied for 485 and you are waiting a receipt. Use the bright colored paper option they recommended for such situations.
Just mention you applied for 485 and you are waiting a receipt. Use the bright colored paper option they recommended for such situations.
more...
house selena gomez kids choice
ssingh92
06-11 03:26 PM
I know and understand once receive GC why you want to be here. Just a request. Think about whoever left and forum and Please donate something before you leave this forum and site for good.
:D
Thanks,
:D
Thanks,
tattoo house selena gomez 2011 pics.
smuggymba
03-07 02:15 PM
Hi Smuggymba, very sorry to see you in such a situation...
These things happen....cons of working for non consulting american companies. As long as you stay - the benefits are great but a new VP can change things around. Let's see.
These things happen....cons of working for non consulting american companies. As long as you stay - the benefits are great but a new VP can change things around. Let's see.
more...
pictures images selena gomez kca 2011
fromnaija
04-20 05:28 PM
IF you move to a different city that is not within the same Metroplolitan Area, yes you will have to restart your GC process. The good news however is that you can retain the priority date if your old I-140 is approved.
dresses play lt;bgt;selena gomez dress
krustycat
03-11 09:12 AM
Anyone Know How To Start New Thread?
Use New Thread button
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=5
But if you need to change employer you might open your new thread in this forum: AC21 Portability after 180 days of 485 filing.
How does USCIS know about salary ?
They have your previous W-2, taxes or paystubs from your previous applications and extensions (such as H1, Perm, I-140) and they'll ask for your W-2 or tax return if your application is non-concurrent and your I-140 was approved at least one year before. Otherwise they'll ask for your company's tax return or financial statements to check their ability to pay.
485 non-concurrent check list:
1. copy of all of the pages of the Passport (valid for 6 months or longer);
2. Copy of recent I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, front and back side;
3. Copy of all Approval Notices (i.e., H-1, H-4, L-1, L-2 and etc�) from first entry to the U.S. ;
4. Copy of I-20 (s), student visa, if applicable;
5. Copy of Employment Authorization Document (i.e., from practical training while on F-1 status), if applicable;
6. Birth Certificate or One affidavit and School Leaving Certification along with a Non-Availability Certificate or Two Affidavits of Birth along with a Non-Availability Certificate;
7. Petitioner, U.S. Citizen�s Income Tax returns along with W-2�s for the period after I-140 was approved;
8. Alien beneficiary�s Income Tax returns along with W-2�s for the period after I-140 was approved;
9. Medical Examination including immunizations in a sealed envelope;
10. Birth Certificate from each applicant (original language and translated if language is different than english), additional to item 6 for dependents, if applicable;
11. Marriage Certificate (original language and translated if language is different than english), if applicable;
12. Divorce Certificate (original language and translated if language is different than english), if applicable; and
13. Photographs (4) from each applicant
IRS also send the w2 information to USCIS? No.
whats the criteria of judging the salary? Is it w-2 or pay stub ?
Either way that fit best for you should be OK, but usually is W-2 or/and tax return. You can attach a note stating if you used personal leave or sick leave. I don't know if that's useful. I think that in some situations less documents you send, less questions they'll ask. Anyway, they'll issue a RFE if they want something more from you.
The fact is that they don't judge your salary, they just judge your company's ability to pay you in a future employment. They have to prove that ability before approve your GC. If you are currently getting paid as much as the proposed salary, you should be fine.
Use New Thread button
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=5
But if you need to change employer you might open your new thread in this forum: AC21 Portability after 180 days of 485 filing.
How does USCIS know about salary ?
They have your previous W-2, taxes or paystubs from your previous applications and extensions (such as H1, Perm, I-140) and they'll ask for your W-2 or tax return if your application is non-concurrent and your I-140 was approved at least one year before. Otherwise they'll ask for your company's tax return or financial statements to check their ability to pay.
485 non-concurrent check list:
1. copy of all of the pages of the Passport (valid for 6 months or longer);
2. Copy of recent I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, front and back side;
3. Copy of all Approval Notices (i.e., H-1, H-4, L-1, L-2 and etc�) from first entry to the U.S. ;
4. Copy of I-20 (s), student visa, if applicable;
5. Copy of Employment Authorization Document (i.e., from practical training while on F-1 status), if applicable;
6. Birth Certificate or One affidavit and School Leaving Certification along with a Non-Availability Certificate or Two Affidavits of Birth along with a Non-Availability Certificate;
7. Petitioner, U.S. Citizen�s Income Tax returns along with W-2�s for the period after I-140 was approved;
8. Alien beneficiary�s Income Tax returns along with W-2�s for the period after I-140 was approved;
9. Medical Examination including immunizations in a sealed envelope;
10. Birth Certificate from each applicant (original language and translated if language is different than english), additional to item 6 for dependents, if applicable;
11. Marriage Certificate (original language and translated if language is different than english), if applicable;
12. Divorce Certificate (original language and translated if language is different than english), if applicable; and
13. Photographs (4) from each applicant
IRS also send the w2 information to USCIS? No.
whats the criteria of judging the salary? Is it w-2 or pay stub ?
Either way that fit best for you should be OK, but usually is W-2 or/and tax return. You can attach a note stating if you used personal leave or sick leave. I don't know if that's useful. I think that in some situations less documents you send, less questions they'll ask. Anyway, they'll issue a RFE if they want something more from you.
The fact is that they don't judge your salary, they just judge your company's ability to pay you in a future employment. They have to prove that ability before approve your GC. If you are currently getting paid as much as the proposed salary, you should be fine.
more...
makeup dresses Selena Gomez: 2010
sundeep14
09-08 11:14 AM
On the website it says...
* Calls to Access numbers will be charge by local operator.
Any ideas what these charges are?
* Calls to Access numbers will be charge by local operator.
Any ideas what these charges are?
girlfriend selena gomez kca 2008. aafuss1
digitalrain
06-25 05:05 PM
Unfortunately, there are no good solutions to this problem. Humanitarian Parole is possible, but not likely except in extreme cases such as where there is a serious or life threatening illness. You should consider consulting an immigration attorney with expertise in such matters to to determine what if any chance there is for Humanitarian Parole given your family's particular circumstances.
Another strategy might be for your wife to come to the US and immediately apply for asylum in her own right. If she is granted asylum, then she can file an I-730 for your child. This strategy is complicated and could do more harm than good depending again on the particular facts of your situation. Accordingly, before taking any action, I urge you to seek expert legal representation.
Thank you very much for the response.
I have a lawyer,he advised me to ask the US Embassy to issue the kid a Humanitarian Parole,but I'm not sure if these guys know how to process these kind of unusual cases.They told my wife that I have to file a relative petition.As far as I know he is not eligible for derivative asylum since he got born after my asylum approval.
I wonder if she,my wife,can apply for humanitarian parole at the US Embassy?Or do I have to apply for humanitarian parole?
Lawers that I know are expensive and I'm not sure if these guys really know what are they doing.
I would really appreciate any advice from anyone.
Another strategy might be for your wife to come to the US and immediately apply for asylum in her own right. If she is granted asylum, then she can file an I-730 for your child. This strategy is complicated and could do more harm than good depending again on the particular facts of your situation. Accordingly, before taking any action, I urge you to seek expert legal representation.
Thank you very much for the response.
I have a lawyer,he advised me to ask the US Embassy to issue the kid a Humanitarian Parole,but I'm not sure if these guys know how to process these kind of unusual cases.They told my wife that I have to file a relative petition.As far as I know he is not eligible for derivative asylum since he got born after my asylum approval.
I wonder if she,my wife,can apply for humanitarian parole at the US Embassy?Or do I have to apply for humanitarian parole?
Lawers that I know are expensive and I'm not sure if these guys really know what are they doing.
I would really appreciate any advice from anyone.
hairstyles Selena Gomez won an award to
hojo
09-05 09:36 PM
awesome splash dan
bikram_das_in
10-20 06:15 PM
Any violator of US immigration law is prohibited from entering USA for 10 years. Your wife may apply for for green card after 10 years. You will be a citizen by then, so things should be easy. Ask a lawyer if you have a better option.
pappu
12-31 01:35 PM
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?
Family of three.
It maybe a case of load balancing between service centers, but sending to Vermont is odd after they started bi-specialization. Generally I have heard between Texas or Nebraska and in some cases to Local offices. Did the transfer notice say... we are transferring to speed up your case....?
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?
Family of three.
It maybe a case of load balancing between service centers, but sending to Vermont is odd after they started bi-specialization. Generally I have heard between Texas or Nebraska and in some cases to Local offices. Did the transfer notice say... we are transferring to speed up your case....?