psaxena
05-26 05:09 PM
I have seen the similar stop points in San Diego also and also while travelling to CA from AZ I was stopped at the border and then the office looked inside the car and said and thank you and let us go. I normally drive CA on the long weekends most of the time and everytime the same thing happens.
Well good to know this, as I never carried my documents ever with me.
Well good to know this, as I never carried my documents ever with me.
wallpaper Amber Rose was spotted out
monkeyman
09-27 10:28 AM
I have worked in France and Belgium for a little over an year and this is my personal experience - the work environment at that time 2000 - 01 was alright. However, I had to struggle with language barriers and worse of all - the keyboard barriers. The standards in IT industry were very very different and though it was an experience, the learning curve was huge. Personally, I would much rather prefer to be in US or better still in UAE I'd think.
Next, I have been reading a lot about reverse brain drain - where families were going back home. I also heard about some site about return2India.com. And my brother took the step after pondering over it for an year - he had it all - GC, a family here, job at you know where in Seattle - and his experience has been an enlightment - he is now struggling with work life ratio - he spends most of the day/night at work and he has to pay bills at the bank and he has no clue what is going on at the school and somehow, his team in India thinks he is a smartass because he tries to apply certain standards (which ofcourse is normal here) and he speaks with an accent. And yes, if you studied here and lived for 10 years, you too will have the accent. But, he says he is very satisfied and happy to be there.And then he says, the pay scale is sufficient for him and his family to lead the Indian dream. We should have some way of commuicating with such expatriates too!!!
Next, I have been reading a lot about reverse brain drain - where families were going back home. I also heard about some site about return2India.com. And my brother took the step after pondering over it for an year - he had it all - GC, a family here, job at you know where in Seattle - and his experience has been an enlightment - he is now struggling with work life ratio - he spends most of the day/night at work and he has to pay bills at the bank and he has no clue what is going on at the school and somehow, his team in India thinks he is a smartass because he tries to apply certain standards (which ofcourse is normal here) and he speaks with an accent. And yes, if you studied here and lived for 10 years, you too will have the accent. But, he says he is very satisfied and happy to be there.And then he says, the pay scale is sufficient for him and his family to lead the Indian dream. We should have some way of commuicating with such expatriates too!!!
yabadaba
08-15 04:14 PM
i am squishing up a baby bumble bee ..wont my mommy be so proud of me...i m squishing up a baby bumble bee...ewww its yucky
2011 amber rose fat pics,
nc14
10-19 11:03 AM
Sent mine on Saturday.
Keep this going folks we need to help ourselves.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
11.
Question: We have a number of date availability questions. They are:
a.
What is the demographic makeup of those in the current backlog? Can we get data on their nationality?
Response: No, demographic data is not currently available and would require a special Information Technology Service Request (ITSR) be drafted and submitted to the Office of Information Technology www.uscis.gov
(OIT). The administrative burden on USCIS to pursue an ITSR solution and add an additional workload on the O&M contractor cannot be justified given the level of effort involved.
Keep this going folks we need to help ourselves.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
11.
Question: We have a number of date availability questions. They are:
a.
What is the demographic makeup of those in the current backlog? Can we get data on their nationality?
Response: No, demographic data is not currently available and would require a special Information Technology Service Request (ITSR) be drafted and submitted to the Office of Information Technology www.uscis.gov
(OIT). The administrative burden on USCIS to pursue an ITSR solution and add an additional workload on the O&M contractor cannot be justified given the level of effort involved.
more...
jonty_11
07-09 06:36 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
grinch
02-27 08:59 PM
ahha don't worry about it soulty, i appreciate the effort.
I actually got a bit of help from my dad and some of my edu maya books.
Thanks guys, if i need more help, I'll ask!
I actually got a bit of help from my dad and some of my edu maya books.
Thanks guys, if i need more help, I'll ask!
more...
Refugee_New
02-21 11:03 AM
My co-worker tried that and now has 3 RFE's to respond to.
Don't know the details but mostly it looks like a scam since why did one file Eb3 in first place and how can he add more exp. while Eb3 is pending as a factor for EB2? He is respondign since OCT. but they just keep asking for more details and they have first question for 140/PERM asking - DID YOU EVER HAD ANOTHER LABOR certification besides this one?
Be very careful-
This is what happend in my case. I converted my EB3 PD to EB2 PD.
My EB3 PD was 02/2002. LC Approved in Oct 2005. I-140 approved in 04/2006
I lost my job and joined another company. Applied PERM with MS degree. Got approved in Jan 2007. Then applied I-140 using PP, requesting to recapture older PD.
My I-140 was approved within 3 days without any trouble. Now my PD is 02/2002, EB2
So if you have a right reason then porting PD shouldn't be a problem.
Don't know the details but mostly it looks like a scam since why did one file Eb3 in first place and how can he add more exp. while Eb3 is pending as a factor for EB2? He is respondign since OCT. but they just keep asking for more details and they have first question for 140/PERM asking - DID YOU EVER HAD ANOTHER LABOR certification besides this one?
Be very careful-
This is what happend in my case. I converted my EB3 PD to EB2 PD.
My EB3 PD was 02/2002. LC Approved in Oct 2005. I-140 approved in 04/2006
I lost my job and joined another company. Applied PERM with MS degree. Got approved in Jan 2007. Then applied I-140 using PP, requesting to recapture older PD.
My I-140 was approved within 3 days without any trouble. Now my PD is 02/2002, EB2
So if you have a right reason then porting PD shouldn't be a problem.
2010 Amber Rose#39;s big, fat (and
Googler
02-20 03:11 PM
googler u r the new berkeleybee!!
can u call him in a few weeks and ask him what was the number of eb2 india pre-dec 2003 that he got from uscis?
I try not to abuse his patience too much -- this was the first time ever that I called him twice in the matter of seven days. ;-)
can u call him in a few weeks and ask him what was the number of eb2 india pre-dec 2003 that he got from uscis?
I try not to abuse his patience too much -- this was the first time ever that I called him twice in the matter of seven days. ;-)
more...
GotGC??
04-20 02:23 PM
[SIZE=3]Attn: California Members � Please participate in this event to support STRIVE ACT.
Will be there ! Go IV !!
Will be there ! Go IV !!
hair amber rose and gabby sidibe
gc03
07-24 03:36 PM
Mr. Gonz�lez,
I have a question on retrogression in Employment Based (EB) Visas. I am in the USA LEGALLY for the past 7 + years and am still waiting for my Green Card (Permanent Residency) in the employment based category. How long do I have to wait? With current retrogression of the dates, I cannot apply for adjustment of status for another 5 or more year. My green card process is going on and on for the past 4 + years. The situation is very disappointing one and all. My spouse is having Research Doctorate and waiting for my Permanent Residency to contribute to the economy and society.
My Question:
Is it possible to you allowing filing of I-485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The Adjust Status of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available.
Regards,
I have a question on retrogression in Employment Based (EB) Visas. I am in the USA LEGALLY for the past 7 + years and am still waiting for my Green Card (Permanent Residency) in the employment based category. How long do I have to wait? With current retrogression of the dates, I cannot apply for adjustment of status for another 5 or more year. My green card process is going on and on for the past 4 + years. The situation is very disappointing one and all. My spouse is having Research Doctorate and waiting for my Permanent Residency to contribute to the economy and society.
My Question:
Is it possible to you allowing filing of I-485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The Adjust Status of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available.
Regards,
more...
ak_2006
06-10 12:36 PM
Thanks Pappu to bring this to every notice of IV Community. It looks like they want to send every body out except citizens or GC holders.
hot Now and then: Model Amber Rose
chanduv23
07-13 01:57 PM
A RALLY IS BEING ORGANIZED IN SAN JOSE TOMORROW. PLEASE CHANNELIZE ALL YOUR POSITIVE ENERGY IN ACCOMPLISHING THIS TASK.
DONT WASTE TIME ON NEGATIVE ENERGY.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10086
DONT WASTE TIME ON NEGATIVE ENERGY.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10086
more...
house Kanye West and Amber Rose in
vdlrao
06-09 02:58 AM
"It has been necessary to retrogress the Mexico Family First and Third preference cut-off dates, as well as the China Employment Second preference cut-off date for July to keep visa issuances within those annual category numerical limits. "
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4512.html
This seems to be that the Spill Over Hasnt Occured Yet for this year.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4512.html
This seems to be that the Spill Over Hasnt Occured Yet for this year.
tattoo amber rose fat photos. fat may
![amber rose fat photos. [So Stylistik] AMBER ROSE#39;S](http://bestylistik.com/wp-content/uploads/AmberRose-Indashio1.jpg "[So Stylistik] AMBER ROSE#39;S")
jonty_11
07-09 06:36 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
more...
pictures Back to Amber Rose Is Looking
h1techSlave
02-08 02:44 PM
sts_seeker, We are perfectly happy to wait "before everyone who filed earlier." If you as a Nepali had a PD in 2001 and my PD is in 2002, I have no problems in you getting your GC before me. In this situation, you have filed before me, so it is fair that you should get your GC before me.
But today with the Country quota in place, your PD could be in 2007 and my PD could be in 2002. Guess, who would GC first?
I support country quota otherwise all the greencards will be taken by Indians and Chinese and the people from small countries will not even get a chance. I am sorry but of you are born on one of these countries then you have to wait before everyone who filed earlier.
But today with the Country quota in place, your PD could be in 2007 and my PD could be in 2002. Guess, who would GC first?
I support country quota otherwise all the greencards will be taken by Indians and Chinese and the people from small countries will not even get a chance. I am sorry but of you are born on one of these countries then you have to wait before everyone who filed earlier.
dresses amber rose fat photos. rose
perm2gc
01-11 03:25 PM
http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?p=850460#post850460
http://www.indiacause.com/services/advt/advt_lst_one.asp?srno=10394
http://www.indiacause.com/services/advt/advt_lst_one.asp?srno=10394
more...
makeup Budding style icon Amber Rose
delax
07-14 08:01 PM
Yes. I VOLUNTARILY exclude myself from any such potential benefit. :)
I am surprised by the defence of this lawfirm in most of your posts on this forum.
And I am surprised by you using a contribution to Immigrationvoice as the only yradstick for working towards immigrant "rights"
By that yardstick neither of us can proclaim ourselves as being working towards immigrant "rights".
Note the quotes - a privilege cannot be a right. DUE PROCESS is your right towards attaing that privilege - we need to focus on that - not on what Murthy does or does not do or even more importantly what you expect her to do or not to do.
I am surprised by the defence of this lawfirm in most of your posts on this forum.
And I am surprised by you using a contribution to Immigrationvoice as the only yradstick for working towards immigrant "rights"
By that yardstick neither of us can proclaim ourselves as being working towards immigrant "rights".
Note the quotes - a privilege cannot be a right. DUE PROCESS is your right towards attaing that privilege - we need to focus on that - not on what Murthy does or does not do or even more importantly what you expect her to do or not to do.
girlfriend [So Stylistik] AMBER ROSE#39;S
justAnotherFile
07-25 12:24 PM
"Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself".
Dude I apologize if my line of argument is irritating you so much. btw 245(a)(3) is not plain english its legalese. And I'm not the one arguing with myself there are others in this thread who read the law along the same lines. Anyway this forum is for debate and thats what we are doing.
Probably this option is not attractive to you that you are so pissed with it.
Btw I'm contacting some attorneys on my personal expense to interpret this.
If they reach the same conclusion as you I'll be happy to accept it, i have no issues and I'll post it on this thread.
But the fact is at this point I still believe there may just be a 1% chance.
Dude I apologize if my line of argument is irritating you so much. btw 245(a)(3) is not plain english its legalese. And I'm not the one arguing with myself there are others in this thread who read the law along the same lines. Anyway this forum is for debate and thats what we are doing.
Probably this option is not attractive to you that you are so pissed with it.
Btw I'm contacting some attorneys on my personal expense to interpret this.
If they reach the same conclusion as you I'll be happy to accept it, i have no issues and I'll post it on this thread.
But the fact is at this point I still believe there may just be a 1% chance.
hairstyles Peak Of Amber Rose in King
MDix
02-11 12:09 PM
Looks like Ron is correct. This year DOS is estimating 9K FB visa but the number could go high. Last year they didn't estimate anything but by end of Year we got 13k( Per Ron). I read some where these numbers are not clear uptill end of year.
Bottom line is we may get more and we need to ask them about those lost 13k of last year. Looks like need of FOIA from DOS/CIS.
Bottom line is we may get more and we need to ask them about those lost 13k of last year. Looks like need of FOIA from DOS/CIS.
tampacoolie
07-13 10:51 PM
I have a gut feeling that he does not have right to revise visa bulletin.
another one
07-16 05:29 PM
their Vancouver center to achievements of NumbersUSA and Lou Dobbs. We really need to let the world know that programmers guild, NuumbersUSA and Lou Dobbs has declared a war against middle class, and it will now lead to an impact on Seattle's economy. Heard that some people would be selling houses or drinking less coffee.