images Classic car Wallpaper for 
eucalyptus.mp
02-18 02:13 PM
I tried to contact 2-3 employers but no one seems to be intersted in H1 transfer now a days .
wallpaper Cars hq pictures and
freddyCR
July 27th, 2005, 05:24 PM
I never clone imperfections on flowers...I do on faces , though. :)
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
2011 your favorite classic car?
creativeFuzion
01-01 05:02 PM
What about the gradient in the background of your sample entry?
I was wondering the same thing.
I was wondering the same thing.
more...
bobzibub
04-29 09:03 AM
Can you please explain why it is utter nonsense? I think you have very strong reasons for saying so. Would like to hear from you.
Thanks!
The original quote: puts the priorities of illegals above those of Citizens and legal people
There is no allowance for "illegals" in the legal system. They are basically tarring roofs and picking crops with no government protection for their safety etc. The crap jobs are always the worst for this sort of thing. And since they are "exploitable" it is essentially a subsidy for business to hire them.
Is there *any* case where an "illegal" has superior rights to a Citizen? I don't think so. The statement is nonsense.
Thanks!
The original quote: puts the priorities of illegals above those of Citizens and legal people
There is no allowance for "illegals" in the legal system. They are basically tarring roofs and picking crops with no government protection for their safety etc. The crap jobs are always the worst for this sort of thing. And since they are "exploitable" it is essentially a subsidy for business to hire them.
Is there *any* case where an "illegal" has superior rights to a Citizen? I don't think so. The statement is nonsense.
lvinaykumar
07-02 02:16 PM
all i can say is they are taking us for granted. If we don't do anything about it they will continue to do this again and again. We should fight back. Put a lawsuit. I have take a vacation to get the documents done and also pay for my medical exam. Which costed me lot of money. I don't mind spending few more to fight for what was taken away from me..
I am going to contribute as soon as i get my pay check this month.....Lets fight.
I am going to contribute as soon as i get my pay check this month.....Lets fight.
more...
ilovestirfries
10-01 02:10 PM
Thanks people...Hearing from people caught up in similar scenarios, at least, gives me a sense of relief that I am not alone...I shall call up NSC and check up on my spouse's application...Thanks again to all those who responded...
2010 car desktop wallpapers for
vnsriv
03-28 10:25 AM
Well Jnayar & Berkeleybee,
Thanks for your help.
Thanks for your help.
more...
Bharam
06-06 09:19 AM
Fellow IVians,
Contributed $200 for the cause.
Wish you all the best
Contributed $200 for the cause.
Wish you all the best
hair To download wallpapers BMW 3
Rb_newsletter
12-15 06:03 PM
Why did you submit pay stubs for 2+ years? Is it not enough if we submit for last 3 or 6 months?
4) Can I see your Paystubs?
A) Gave him all the paystubs since May 2007.
5) Why are the amounts different in paystubs?
A) Base salary is same, but bonus component varies every pay cycle. Also, my employer had switched to a different payroll company and since then they are running the payroll weekly.
4) Can I see your Paystubs?
A) Gave him all the paystubs since May 2007.
5) Why are the amounts different in paystubs?
A) Base salary is same, but bonus component varies every pay cycle. Also, my employer had switched to a different payroll company and since then they are running the payroll weekly.
more...
rkotamurthy
09-29 10:20 PM
There are lot of action items post DC Rally/Lobby Day. If you have ideas for
increasing IV's publicity, visibility or member participation, this meeting
would be a good platform to brainstrorm. We will need to move into a high
gear and start agressive campaign in So Cal.
Please join Local IV chapter and also attend Oct 6th meeting in Cerritos, CA. Meetings details can be found on Yahoo Group. For new members, this will be a great chance to meet and greet local IV members. For not-so-new members, this will be good chance to brainstrom about future actions.
Please be assured that it will not be a wasted Saturday afternoon.:)
increasing IV's publicity, visibility or member participation, this meeting
would be a good platform to brainstrorm. We will need to move into a high
gear and start agressive campaign in So Cal.
Please join Local IV chapter and also attend Oct 6th meeting in Cerritos, CA. Meetings details can be found on Yahoo Group. For new members, this will be a great chance to meet and greet local IV members. For not-so-new members, this will be good chance to brainstrom about future actions.
Please be assured that it will not be a wasted Saturday afternoon.:)
hot classic harley davidson
aamchimumbai
05-17 03:11 AM
How long did i take for you to get the vaccinations ? I mean were you done in a day.
Thanks
I just posted another alternative to saving on the vaccines:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=87048&postcount=20
Basically, if your county health dept has a program, they can give you vaccinations for dirt cheap prices. I paid only $10 per person for Td & MMR :)
Thanks
I just posted another alternative to saving on the vaccines:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=87048&postcount=20
Basically, if your county health dept has a program, they can give you vaccinations for dirt cheap prices. I paid only $10 per person for Td & MMR :)
more...
house classic car wallpaper
snathan
03-03 09:48 PM
Hi all,
consider i am working in location A and need to move to B from next month. is there any restriction in LCA?
why my company is not even applying? Due to some reasons they dont want to put me in location B and diverting to another location D.?
what may be the reason? why they are concerned about the offshore salary?
You should ask these questions to your employer.
consider i am working in location A and need to move to B from next month. is there any restriction in LCA?
why my company is not even applying? Due to some reasons they dont want to put me in location B and diverting to another location D.?
what may be the reason? why they are concerned about the offshore salary?
You should ask these questions to your employer.
tattoo Classic Car desktop wallpaper
mihird
09-26 04:29 PM
Ur missing the point.
The number after the letter, which stands for the classification category is pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of determining the maximum period of stay. You might notice that in many publications USCIS addresses visitors to the US as being in B, H or L status, omitting the #.
As long as your wife maintains her H4 status properly (providing you maintain your H1 status) and as long as she possess necessary travel documents she is free to enter and exit the country.
As far as I understand she will not have any legal problem obtaining an H1 visa after staying out of the country for a year, as long as the visa # is available, she has a job offer etc.
But I do not believe that her H status clock will reset if she leaves the country for a year, then enter in H4 status (which is still a derivative and tied to your principal H status clock). Therefore she will not be able to change her status to that of H1.
Again, it's a pretty complicated matter and you might want to consult an experienced lawyer.
Once you leave the US for 366 days, your H clock is reset. Now, you enter back on a H4, your H clock starts ticking down again..you should be able to do the H4->H1 change of status (once a H visa # is available) and exit and re-enter on a H1 visa and get new time on your H1 of [6 years - minus the time spent on H4]. Again, I am not an attorney, I am just saying this from what seems logical to me..
The number after the letter, which stands for the classification category is pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of determining the maximum period of stay. You might notice that in many publications USCIS addresses visitors to the US as being in B, H or L status, omitting the #.
As long as your wife maintains her H4 status properly (providing you maintain your H1 status) and as long as she possess necessary travel documents she is free to enter and exit the country.
As far as I understand she will not have any legal problem obtaining an H1 visa after staying out of the country for a year, as long as the visa # is available, she has a job offer etc.
But I do not believe that her H status clock will reset if she leaves the country for a year, then enter in H4 status (which is still a derivative and tied to your principal H status clock). Therefore she will not be able to change her status to that of H1.
Again, it's a pretty complicated matter and you might want to consult an experienced lawyer.
Once you leave the US for 366 days, your H clock is reset. Now, you enter back on a H4, your H clock starts ticking down again..you should be able to do the H4->H1 change of status (once a H visa # is available) and exit and re-enter on a H1 visa and get new time on your H1 of [6 years - minus the time spent on H4]. Again, I am not an attorney, I am just saying this from what seems logical to me..
more...
pictures cool car wallpaper - a
leo2606
08-04 08:47 PM
If I were you, I will pay additional $1,000 to USCIS for getting me out of GC mess.
I've applied for EAD/AP renewal for both myself and my wife. I spent $1,290 for this.
Say I got my GC approved and then I call USCIS and withdraw my pending EAD/AP application. Will I get a refund for pending EAD/AP application, if I get my GC approved before EAD/AP approval?
Thanks,
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
I've applied for EAD/AP renewal for both myself and my wife. I spent $1,290 for this.
Say I got my GC approved and then I call USCIS and withdraw my pending EAD/AP application. Will I get a refund for pending EAD/AP application, if I get my GC approved before EAD/AP approval?
Thanks,
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
dresses Classic cars wallpaper
asiehouston
09-05 09:19 PM
I finally got my AP, 15 days after my EAD (100 days total) . I was happy to open the packet, until this......
THEY SENT ME MY AP WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S PICTURE!!!!!!!
Everything else is Correct (address, DOB, A# etc...)
GURUS, please advise what should I do...... I am so pissed!!!!! Thankfully my EAD has the correct pic.... I had done an E-file....June 7th and my previous AP expires Sept 20
THEY SENT ME MY AP WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S PICTURE!!!!!!!
Everything else is Correct (address, DOB, A# etc...)
GURUS, please advise what should I do...... I am so pissed!!!!! Thankfully my EAD has the correct pic.... I had done an E-file....June 7th and my previous AP expires Sept 20
more...
makeup Vintage Car Wallpapers
sunny1000
06-26 09:56 PM
Thanx once again Ms. Sen for you so valuable response. Is there anyways, you could tell me the email address. It will be then easy for me to talk to him when I have all the information. Another question, has the email to be sent out only by the lawyer, or the company can directly do that?
Thanx once again...
It is:
streamline.tsc@dhs.gov
There is a specific format to send this email. Here is the link to the PDF:
http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tsc-streamline-procedure.pdf
Here is the original post:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/visa-bulletin-status-tracker-processing-times/22849-tsc-streamline-processing.html
Thanx once again...
It is:
streamline.tsc@dhs.gov
There is a specific format to send this email. Here is the link to the PDF:
http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tsc-streamline-procedure.pdf
Here is the original post:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/visa-bulletin-status-tracker-processing-times/22849-tsc-streamline-processing.html
girlfriend Classic Car Wallpaper
rbalaji5
07-25 03:09 PM
There is a problem with my wife's date of birth certificate. The brith certificate holds the original date of birth (May 1973) where as the all other ceritificates like school records, passports is having different date of birth (Dec 1973) (usually in India we used to change the date of birth to get into the kindergarden with some early date of birth). I am unable to get the Non-availability certificate as the original birth certificate already exists. Correcting the date of birth all the certificates and passports is not possible and it may took a long time as we need to go through court.
I am planning to submit the affidavits from parents alongwith the other certificates like 10th Mark sheets, etc., Pls advise - Is it ok?.
Otherwise I can submit the original brith certificate alongwith affidavits from parents and relatives saying that the date of birth is mistakenly registered.
Please help.
I am planning to submit the affidavits from parents alongwith the other certificates like 10th Mark sheets, etc., Pls advise - Is it ok?.
Otherwise I can submit the original brith certificate alongwith affidavits from parents and relatives saying that the date of birth is mistakenly registered.
Please help.
hairstyles Cars Desktop Wallpaper
jthomas
06-10 12:11 PM
Sidbee,
thank you sidbee and i would pray that you would never be in this position. Its hard to stay home without at job and secondly, with H1B laidoff its even tougher.
I was laidoff recently and i know the stress one goes through. That's the reason i am trying to help by making a IVjobhunters group. I have found my job and i have nothing to gain.
Sidbee if you cannot talk good or help please shut your mouth. . If someone is asking for help ( Laidoff means Was terminated from work for no reason of yours).
You have the right to ask your employer for one way return ticket to your home town. Its not just the international airport but till your home town, Its a law and you should get it.
I was laidoff and i took unemployment benifits, Sidbee, Give me a lecture.
J thomas
Man you are illegal in the country, And you want to pressurize your employer to follow the law.
If i was a employer , and had laid of a employee , I may not have reported the lay off, but if he tried to teach me the law , i would have surely reported it to the USCIS , as a illegal.
thank you sidbee and i would pray that you would never be in this position. Its hard to stay home without at job and secondly, with H1B laidoff its even tougher.
I was laidoff recently and i know the stress one goes through. That's the reason i am trying to help by making a IVjobhunters group. I have found my job and i have nothing to gain.
Sidbee if you cannot talk good or help please shut your mouth. . If someone is asking for help ( Laidoff means Was terminated from work for no reason of yours).
You have the right to ask your employer for one way return ticket to your home town. Its not just the international airport but till your home town, Its a law and you should get it.
I was laidoff and i took unemployment benifits, Sidbee, Give me a lecture.
J thomas
Man you are illegal in the country, And you want to pressurize your employer to follow the law.
If i was a employer , and had laid of a employee , I may not have reported the lay off, but if he tried to teach me the law , i would have surely reported it to the USCIS , as a illegal.
ckarri
07-27 01:46 PM
I have a friend who filed is 485 on July 24th and he couldn't file for his spouse who was in india at that time.She is coming back on July 30 and planning to file for her I-485.My friend did not receive any receipt and what does he need to do in order to file for her i-485?
-Thanks
contributed $250 so far.
-Thanks
contributed $250 so far.
webm
05-28 10:43 PM
Hi everybody,
please help - the lawyer filed the original EAD/AP applications.
Now I want to renew it myself - Should I fill an additional form (G - something for changing representation)
if I am filing paper EAD/AP forms???
Thanks....
Yes file the G-28 forms as well..thats what i did too..
please help - the lawyer filed the original EAD/AP applications.
Now I want to renew it myself - Should I fill an additional form (G - something for changing representation)
if I am filing paper EAD/AP forms???
Thanks....
Yes file the G-28 forms as well..thats what i did too..
