frostrated
08-10 12:00 PM
A person holding H-4 can attend college in the U.S. In fact, some colleges offer in-state tuition for H-4 students. Check Brooklyn College for instance. INA does not specifically disallow from attending college of H-4 nor H-1 and colleges are aware of this. So if your wife is doing this only because she would like to pursue degree, I would suggest she explores the options and if possible remains on H-4, which is a dual intent status.
Best Wishes,
true, but she will not be able to work while on H4. She will also not be able to apply for any internships or work on campus.
Best Wishes,
true, but she will not be able to work while on H4. She will also not be able to apply for any internships or work on campus.
wallpaper BMX XXX wallpapers
indigokiwi
04-17 12:50 PM
^^^^^^^
amdn123
11-08 11:38 AM
Hi everyone,
I am trying to reschedule my H1B appointment as my contact in mumbai failed to deliver the DS-156 and DS-157 to the consulate in time (5 business days prior). However, I can't book a new one till the old one is cancelled and the system won't let me cancel 5 business days or less before the current appointment. Does anyone know what to do? It must have happened to someone before? I really need to get back to the US in 10 days.
Thanks!!
I am trying to reschedule my H1B appointment as my contact in mumbai failed to deliver the DS-156 and DS-157 to the consulate in time (5 business days prior). However, I can't book a new one till the old one is cancelled and the system won't let me cancel 5 business days or less before the current appointment. Does anyone know what to do? It must have happened to someone before? I really need to get back to the US in 10 days.
Thanks!!
2011 Sexy HQ Girls Wallpapers
JA1HIND
09-02 01:10 PM
I did not get any soft LUD. Will all the updates happening, folks getting second FP, I wanted to make sure my case is not getting delayed due to some mistake either on their or my part. If nothing else, upon changing the address using online means, USCIS should have sent me a notice in mail at my new address to confirm the change, which I did not get. Hence the query.
Question: did you update your new home mailing address online at USPS (Postal website) or using USCIS (Change address) at the time of updating your new mailing address? Initially you do receive a confirmation # when you fillout first part of online application then later you would see additional links at the bottom of page where it would ask for "are there any pending application" somthing like that...
If you did update using UCSIS website then did you enter your A# (that is if you have already applied for EAD/I-485 then you should have a A#) along with your pending receipt numbers?
I did change my home address for 4 times now in the past 2 years and everytime when updated using USCIS, I promptly received individual letters notification/confirmation for each family members (pending cases) that address was sucessfully updated.
Just a thought!!
Question: did you update your new home mailing address online at USPS (Postal website) or using USCIS (Change address) at the time of updating your new mailing address? Initially you do receive a confirmation # when you fillout first part of online application then later you would see additional links at the bottom of page where it would ask for "are there any pending application" somthing like that...
If you did update using UCSIS website then did you enter your A# (that is if you have already applied for EAD/I-485 then you should have a A#) along with your pending receipt numbers?
I did change my home address for 4 times now in the past 2 years and everytime when updated using USCIS, I promptly received individual letters notification/confirmation for each family members (pending cases) that address was sucessfully updated.
Just a thought!!
more...
diptam
06-10 07:41 PM
I'm confused - Everyone who has a 140 is supposed to have a Labor and very likely that will be more than 365 days old. So why do anyone need 140 approval in that sense ?
The reason i'm getting nuts for 140 approval because i can't safely switch to a EAD or get a Longer duration H1B ( 3 yrs after 140 approval). I'm in major Limbo with some other folks at NSC for last 13 months just for a EB3(140) - My friends got approval in 6-8 months from TSC or if its a EB2(140) at Nebraska.
See my other post asking ideas to break this stalemate.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19534
You do not qualify for this at least according to the above statement. You do not need 140 approved for h extension. You will automatically get the h extension based on the fact that you labor was filed 365 days prior to your H expiration. This is for folks who need 140 approved for H extension
The reason i'm getting nuts for 140 approval because i can't safely switch to a EAD or get a Longer duration H1B ( 3 yrs after 140 approval). I'm in major Limbo with some other folks at NSC for last 13 months just for a EB3(140) - My friends got approval in 6-8 months from TSC or if its a EB2(140) at Nebraska.
See my other post asking ideas to break this stalemate.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19534
You do not qualify for this at least according to the above statement. You do not need 140 approved for h extension. You will automatically get the h extension based on the fact that you labor was filed 365 days prior to your H expiration. This is for folks who need 140 approved for H extension
amsgc
03-31 02:53 PM
I have a somewat similar situation, here goes:
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
more...
![xxx wallpaper. xxxHolic Wallpaper [1]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sjgxoYEqhF2crmFCiq8jiBB8PuIS6dQwC7-pqyi09o12eJxmK_jN_Y1yer3cHUBFMUX7vcL_YcDcChNQ7AUWEkeJAwVbfFY8PEnY8rR1wEJAcTyvAcFelnulVDGEiLDFgoxKtBtXi4cHYV5kxyh8VVgtsZ4e8oO2Dk3tBFqK0ZfWi1FEk=s0-d "xxxHolic Wallpaper [1]")
gcformeornot
01-09 03:01 PM
EB2 India "U"
EB3 India couple of months ahead in 2001.
EB3 India couple of months ahead in 2001.
2010 hd-xxx-wallpapers iphone-.
cygent
09-20 10:26 PM
For a home in a nice neighborhood, you will only get a condo for that price in CA. Homes will be in bad areas like S. San Jose, Oakland, Los Angeles - Crenshaw, Inglewood, Long Beach. IN Central Valley, like Fresno, Modesto you might get a good home for that $$ range.
more...
shan74
10-23 07:20 AM
There is a chance that i might get laid off. I have a pending I485 filed on July 2. My I-140 was approved in June 06. Would like to know if i get laid off within how many days do i have to find a job.
really need to know this based on the market situation.
really need to know this based on the market situation.
hair Cage Movie Wallpaper XXX
GCard_Dream
03-15 06:32 PM
Thanks a lot for all that good information. You mentioned about O*NET category and job zone. What is O*NET category and how do I know what category does my current job and expected future job fall under?
more...
monikainusa
03-22 09:14 AM
the notice says:
based on the document you have submitted to us and the information elicited in your interview with an american consuller officer we are not able to issue
you an h-4 temporary visa because :
the petetioner does not appear to be either able or willing to provide qualifying employemnt for the principle applicant in the united states in accordance with
a appropriate laws and regulations
I have provided all the documents including client letter.please advise.. also does it revoke my husband's H1B visa ?
based on the document you have submitted to us and the information elicited in your interview with an american consuller officer we are not able to issue
you an h-4 temporary visa because :
the petetioner does not appear to be either able or willing to provide qualifying employemnt for the principle applicant in the united states in accordance with
a appropriate laws and regulations
I have provided all the documents including client letter.please advise.. also does it revoke my husband's H1B visa ?
hot Free xxx wallpaper and
immi2006
08-08 06:22 PM
I guess N +1 syndrome :-)
And you know this how?:confused:
And you know this how?:confused:
more...
house Search results: xxx wallpapers
slc_ut
01-18 10:30 AM
I've visited the local IRS office again. A different official told that only passport is enough for a foreign national to get the ITIN number. The W7 form needs to be submitted with the tax filing documents.
tattoo Free xxx wallpaper and
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
pictures xxxHolic Wallpaper [1]
sys_manus
01-28 09:48 AM
I can understand the amount of anxiety and stress you must be undergoing... Especially with EB3 future in near term looking bleak. I sometimes feel its is kind of very unfair for people in EB3 boat. Try EB3 -> EB2
As they taught in survival school.. improvise.. improvise with what ever you have. Instead of looking at VB and feeling dismayed start looking around you.. tools you have the means you have.
When it happens it happens... do whatever you can do and leave the rest to take its course. Don't worry about things you don't have control on.
Life goes on...
PS: Ignore any smartA replies... they just aggravate you sense of feeling bad.
I am an optimist. A hopeful person. I like to and want to see the positive side of things. However, the current political climate and economic state of the nation makes me skeptical.
Much has been said and (not) done so far about immigration reform. The murphy's law half of my brain is starting to get queasy. I've been in this mess for 6 years now and dread the doomsday scenario that immigration reform doesn't go through this year. If it does not, I think we're all completely effed up for the next 3-4 years, at least until after the next elections. I hope to be wrong on this, by a long shot.
My question to some of you is - what will you do if skilled reform doesn't happen this year?
My career has been stagnating, rotting away almost. I've been working on a startup idea in my spare time for a while now. Of course, these sort of ventures need time and full-time effort to take-off. I have often entertained the thought of leaving my job, returning back to India, or finding some way, by hook or crook, of doing my own thing, and reviving my career. Having lived here, first as a grad student, and now as a wage slave, for the past 9 years, returning is not an easy option. If reform does not happen, I don't see anything but darkness for a pretty long time.
What will you do?
As they taught in survival school.. improvise.. improvise with what ever you have. Instead of looking at VB and feeling dismayed start looking around you.. tools you have the means you have.
When it happens it happens... do whatever you can do and leave the rest to take its course. Don't worry about things you don't have control on.
Life goes on...
PS: Ignore any smartA replies... they just aggravate you sense of feeling bad.
I am an optimist. A hopeful person. I like to and want to see the positive side of things. However, the current political climate and economic state of the nation makes me skeptical.
Much has been said and (not) done so far about immigration reform. The murphy's law half of my brain is starting to get queasy. I've been in this mess for 6 years now and dread the doomsday scenario that immigration reform doesn't go through this year. If it does not, I think we're all completely effed up for the next 3-4 years, at least until after the next elections. I hope to be wrong on this, by a long shot.
My question to some of you is - what will you do if skilled reform doesn't happen this year?
My career has been stagnating, rotting away almost. I've been working on a startup idea in my spare time for a while now. Of course, these sort of ventures need time and full-time effort to take-off. I have often entertained the thought of leaving my job, returning back to India, or finding some way, by hook or crook, of doing my own thing, and reviving my career. Having lived here, first as a grad student, and now as a wage slave, for the past 9 years, returning is not an easy option. If reform does not happen, I don't see anything but darkness for a pretty long time.
What will you do?
dresses xxx wallpapers
eb3India
05-21 10:26 PM
oh well,
we got a bigger fish to fry, I am sure those who might be using labour subs are legals here at one point and they do have a job,
we are not going to gain much by these ammendments,
I am just curious how much authority does USCIS and DOS have to alter our situation.
I am still waiting for response from IV core members
we got a bigger fish to fry, I am sure those who might be using labour subs are legals here at one point and they do have a job,
we are not going to gain much by these ammendments,
I am just curious how much authority does USCIS and DOS have to alter our situation.
I am still waiting for response from IV core members
more...
makeup Download Wallpaper in
spicy_guy
04-07 11:49 AM
Tech firms warn of impacts of tight visa quota - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tech-firms-warn-of-impacts-of-tight-visa-quota-2011-04-07?siteid=rss&rss=1)
girlfriend Wallpaper of Vin Diesel in XXX
raj3078
07-27 12:48 PM
If NSC had put all applications from July 2nd to July 17th on hold.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
You answered your own question....If you are lucky then you will get it
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
You answered your own question....If you are lucky then you will get it
hairstyles Diesel xXx Limited Edition
RLNY122004
06-15 04:23 PM
see the reply
Hi RLNY122004
Please accept my congratulations and enjoy the freedom. Could you please answer the following questions.
1. What do you mean by 'officer told us we will receive our cards in 6 to 8 weeks' Did you take an appointment and visit neary USCIS office?
--- Please see my signature for details. My case was transfered to local office and we were interviwed last year. I took infopass last week went to district office and they told me that FP is expired and will have to take new FP. I gace FP last week and went back again today to findout the status , officer told em everything is okay and she is approving the case. She requested the visa numbers and took our I94.
2. Did you speak on the phone?
--- see 1
3. When was your name check cleared?
--- last year when I went for interview i asked officer and she said its cleared.4. Did you submit your finger prints recently? if yes was it code 1? 2? 3?
--- last one on 06/07/2007 was 10 fingers.
5. Was your I-485 case trasnferred to Texas/Nebraska recently?
--- see 1
I have many more questions but would not bug you, Please provide as much info as possible I would appreciate your reply.
--- I got to go now, I will try to come back online later in the night and answer your questions.TIA
Hi RLNY122004
Please accept my congratulations and enjoy the freedom. Could you please answer the following questions.
1. What do you mean by 'officer told us we will receive our cards in 6 to 8 weeks' Did you take an appointment and visit neary USCIS office?
--- Please see my signature for details. My case was transfered to local office and we were interviwed last year. I took infopass last week went to district office and they told me that FP is expired and will have to take new FP. I gace FP last week and went back again today to findout the status , officer told em everything is okay and she is approving the case. She requested the visa numbers and took our I94.
2. Did you speak on the phone?
--- see 1
3. When was your name check cleared?
--- last year when I went for interview i asked officer and she said its cleared.4. Did you submit your finger prints recently? if yes was it code 1? 2? 3?
--- last one on 06/07/2007 was 10 fingers.
5. Was your I-485 case trasnferred to Texas/Nebraska recently?
--- see 1
I have many more questions but would not bug you, Please provide as much info as possible I would appreciate your reply.
--- I got to go now, I will try to come back online later in the night and answer your questions.TIA
jliechty
May 18th, 2005, 09:39 PM
Sometimes it's hard to get the dust off the sensor with one cleaning. I've cleaned mine once so far, and it still has some dust. I need to get some compressed air so I can recharge my $3 "sensor brush" from walmart and clean the CCD again. ;)
RLNY122004
06-15 03:56 PM
Our I485 approved today and officer told us we will receive our cards in 6 to 8 weeks. Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment