pra945
12-02 03:47 AM
hello all,
i attended for visa stamping on dec 1st at Hyderabad consulate so i got 221g yellow form but he retained passport with him. he told to submit all the documents that are mentioned on the yellow form. did any body got same thing. usually how many days they will take for processing after submiting the documents
Thanks,
Praveen
i attended for visa stamping on dec 1st at Hyderabad consulate so i got 221g yellow form but he retained passport with him. he told to submit all the documents that are mentioned on the yellow form. did any body got same thing. usually how many days they will take for processing after submiting the documents
Thanks,
Praveen
wallpaper holy tattoos - lotus blossom
wa_Saiprasad
07-11 03:44 PM
This is a very interesting thread. People PLEASE USE THIS LINK and lets all email / send a letter to Mr. President and Mr. Vice President.
IV Core Team, please draft a template so that everyone could use.
Thanks Mihird for finding this link. Great Job!!!
IV Core Team, please draft a template so that everyone could use.
Thanks Mihird for finding this link. Great Job!!!
apb
09-11 02:43 PM
We will get some idea on how many are still pending.
2011 Cristianity Tattoo Ideas
RajWantsGC
05-12 09:57 PM
Hello Gurus,
I have bit complicated case. Please have a little patience to go through it. I had two I140s filed in 2007. One was under EB2 and another was under EB3. In July 2007, we filed I485 along with the EB3 I140 receipt (as per my employer). At the time of filing I485, both I140s were pending. In May 2008, my EB2 I140 was denied because of education issue. But at the same time my I1485 was also denied. The reason USCIS gave for denying I485 was that as I140 is denied so I485 was also denied automatically. But we attached the EB3 I140 receipt along with the I485 application. In month of May 2008, we filed MTR for I485 to reopen the case as my EB3 I140 was attached with the I485 and EB3 I140 is still pending. We also filed the appeal for my EB2 I140. In month of August 2008, my EB3 I140 was approved. I opened many service requests with USCIS for I485 MTR but to no use. After waiting for 10 long months since filing I485 MTR, I received a letter from USCIS in January 2009, saying that my MTR is sent to AAO. This is so frustrating. I was under the impression that MTR should not take much time.
Gurus, pleas let me know what are my options left now. I read in forums that people write letters to congressman and senators. I want to know the following things.
1) How to get the addresses of Congressmen and senators?
2) Should we send letters to local Congressman and Senators only? or we can send letters to any congress man and Senators?
3) Will the info pass be useful in my case?
Any help will be highly appreciated.
Thanks
Raj
I have bit complicated case. Please have a little patience to go through it. I had two I140s filed in 2007. One was under EB2 and another was under EB3. In July 2007, we filed I485 along with the EB3 I140 receipt (as per my employer). At the time of filing I485, both I140s were pending. In May 2008, my EB2 I140 was denied because of education issue. But at the same time my I1485 was also denied. The reason USCIS gave for denying I485 was that as I140 is denied so I485 was also denied automatically. But we attached the EB3 I140 receipt along with the I485 application. In month of May 2008, we filed MTR for I485 to reopen the case as my EB3 I140 was attached with the I485 and EB3 I140 is still pending. We also filed the appeal for my EB2 I140. In month of August 2008, my EB3 I140 was approved. I opened many service requests with USCIS for I485 MTR but to no use. After waiting for 10 long months since filing I485 MTR, I received a letter from USCIS in January 2009, saying that my MTR is sent to AAO. This is so frustrating. I was under the impression that MTR should not take much time.
Gurus, pleas let me know what are my options left now. I read in forums that people write letters to congressman and senators. I want to know the following things.
1) How to get the addresses of Congressmen and senators?
2) Should we send letters to local Congressman and Senators only? or we can send letters to any congress man and Senators?
3) Will the info pass be useful in my case?
Any help will be highly appreciated.
Thanks
Raj
more...
Lasantha
11-16 05:21 PM
Celebrated for Krishna killing of the evil Narakasura.Unfortunately..this has become commercial like chirstmas and people forget the real reason and start interpreting thier own stories..it also marks Ram's return to Ayodhya after defeating Ravan.
Then you must alert the senate because I don't see your version in the list in the Senate resolution. :cool:
Then you must alert the senate because I don't see your version in the list in the Senate resolution. :cool:
stucklabor
07-26 02:59 PM
See original A.P. story below.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
The Associated Press
April 15, 2005, Friday, BC cycle
SECTION: Washington Dateline
LENGTH: 550 words
HEADLINE: Senate agrees to votes on immigration measures
BYLINE: By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
Senate Republicans and Democrats worked out a deal Friday on how to handle immigration issues attached to a measure paying for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The immigration measures spilled into the Senate's debate over an $80.6 billion military spending bill after the House included measures in its version to deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and make it harder for foreigners to stay in the United States on claims of asylum.
Under the deal, the Senate will vote Tuesday on three immigration measures. Each would require 60 votes to survive, including one sponsored by Democrat Sen. Barbara Mikulski that would give temporary visas to migrant crab pickers and oyster shuckers in time for Maryland's seafood season.
Another by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, would provide workers for the agricultural industry. It has support from growers and farm worker advocates, but it faces opposition for providing legal status to some workers.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said he opposes using the military spending bill to address immigration, but he is proposing an alternative to Craig's measure. Co-sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz, it doesn't include the legal residency provision.
"While reforms are needed to provide a legal way to meet our agricultural labor needs, we must also remove incentives for illegal immigration and put stricter provisions in place for seasonal workers coming across our borders," Chambliss said.
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the White House and other Republicans had pleaded with senators to keep immigration off the spending bill and address them later in comprehensive immigration legislation.
Democrats refused, saying it was because Frist wouldn't commit to opposing the immigration provisions in the House version when negotiators try to blend the two.
"The only reason we have these Democrat and Republican amendments dealing with immigration is because it was placed in the bill by the Republicans," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said the immigration bills being offered are a "tiny speck" of the immigration problems the country faces.
Mikulski defended her measure to provide Maryland seafood processors and other businesses with more seasonal workers hired through the H2B visa program, saying "the cat was already out of the bag on immigration." Businesses are limited to 66,000 H2B workers a year, and that ceiling was reached Jan. 3.
"Republican leadership has been stalling on this bill by not allowing votes on amendments like mine. I have brought people to the table to vote on this because Maryland's small businesses need help now," Mikulski said.
The House's Iraq spending bill includes the immigration measures its Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wanted in the intelligence reorganization bill President Bush signed in December. He withdrew the provisions back then after House and Senate leaders promised he could attach them to the first major legislation likely to make it to Bush's desk.
They are almost universally opposed by Senate Democrats but also by state motor vehicle commissioners, some GOP senators and religious groups who say people fleeing persecution would be harmed.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
The Associated Press
April 15, 2005, Friday, BC cycle
SECTION: Washington Dateline
LENGTH: 550 words
HEADLINE: Senate agrees to votes on immigration measures
BYLINE: By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
Senate Republicans and Democrats worked out a deal Friday on how to handle immigration issues attached to a measure paying for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The immigration measures spilled into the Senate's debate over an $80.6 billion military spending bill after the House included measures in its version to deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and make it harder for foreigners to stay in the United States on claims of asylum.
Under the deal, the Senate will vote Tuesday on three immigration measures. Each would require 60 votes to survive, including one sponsored by Democrat Sen. Barbara Mikulski that would give temporary visas to migrant crab pickers and oyster shuckers in time for Maryland's seafood season.
Another by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, would provide workers for the agricultural industry. It has support from growers and farm worker advocates, but it faces opposition for providing legal status to some workers.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said he opposes using the military spending bill to address immigration, but he is proposing an alternative to Craig's measure. Co-sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz, it doesn't include the legal residency provision.
"While reforms are needed to provide a legal way to meet our agricultural labor needs, we must also remove incentives for illegal immigration and put stricter provisions in place for seasonal workers coming across our borders," Chambliss said.
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the White House and other Republicans had pleaded with senators to keep immigration off the spending bill and address them later in comprehensive immigration legislation.
Democrats refused, saying it was because Frist wouldn't commit to opposing the immigration provisions in the House version when negotiators try to blend the two.
"The only reason we have these Democrat and Republican amendments dealing with immigration is because it was placed in the bill by the Republicans," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said the immigration bills being offered are a "tiny speck" of the immigration problems the country faces.
Mikulski defended her measure to provide Maryland seafood processors and other businesses with more seasonal workers hired through the H2B visa program, saying "the cat was already out of the bag on immigration." Businesses are limited to 66,000 H2B workers a year, and that ceiling was reached Jan. 3.
"Republican leadership has been stalling on this bill by not allowing votes on amendments like mine. I have brought people to the table to vote on this because Maryland's small businesses need help now," Mikulski said.
The House's Iraq spending bill includes the immigration measures its Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wanted in the intelligence reorganization bill President Bush signed in December. He withdrew the provisions back then after House and Senate leaders promised he could attach them to the first major legislation likely to make it to Bush's desk.
They are almost universally opposed by Senate Democrats but also by state motor vehicle commissioners, some GOP senators and religious groups who say people fleeing persecution would be harmed.
more...
chem2
08-17 07:07 AM
The employer cannot ask you to pay H1 filing fees. You may be responsible for attorney fees, but legally the employer is not allowed to charge you for any filing fees they pay the USCIS (the ~1400 $ you mentioned earlier). I have been in the same situation for many years, my employer requires me to pay attorney fees, but they take care of the H1 filing fees.
I'm no legal expert, but the extra 1000$ tagged on for attorney consultation sounds bogus to me. Attorney fees should include any and all required consultations.
Since you have no plans to join this employer, you may want to investigate what legal options you have, for example, complaining to DOL, USCIS, etc.
good luck. i hope everything works out for you.
I'm no legal expert, but the extra 1000$ tagged on for attorney consultation sounds bogus to me. Attorney fees should include any and all required consultations.
Since you have no plans to join this employer, you may want to investigate what legal options you have, for example, complaining to DOL, USCIS, etc.
good luck. i hope everything works out for you.
2010 in with the holy spirit.
senk1s
08-19 11:22 PM
We did not return the i94 while traveling by air - and our renewal notice was with i94 (same number)
more...
WeldonSprings
01-29 09:14 PM
E-Verify was a bargaining chip for Senate Democrats against Senate Republicans.
What happened was - When Senator Menendez from NJ (Dem.) floated the Visa Recapture Bill; he said that he and other Dems will only support Permanent extension of E-Verify a bill designed to extend it for four additional years; if the Senate Republicans support Visa Recapture Bill.
But the Visa Recapture Bill didn't happen.
So, E-Verify also didn't happen.
However, as a Last Minute "ideal gift" from the Great President Bush to all Legal Immigrants; he issued an Executive order to extend E-Verify till March 06, 2009.
Therefore, E-Verify is active today in the system.
Now, House and Senate Republicans want to permanently extend E-Verify after March 06, 2009; especially the antis and yes NumbersUSA.So, they added this amendment to extend E-Verify for additional 4 years in the Stimulus Bill that passed this Wednesday.
However, the Stimulus Bill has to pass the Senate to become law. Thus, permanent extension of E-Verify has nothing to do with giving Stimulus money to only legal immigrants. It, is just that two immigrant hating politicians added the clause to the bill; in the hopes of seeing it pass. But IT SHOULD FAIL!!!
How is e-Verify going to affect legal immigrants ?
What happened was - When Senator Menendez from NJ (Dem.) floated the Visa Recapture Bill; he said that he and other Dems will only support Permanent extension of E-Verify a bill designed to extend it for four additional years; if the Senate Republicans support Visa Recapture Bill.
But the Visa Recapture Bill didn't happen.
So, E-Verify also didn't happen.
However, as a Last Minute "ideal gift" from the Great President Bush to all Legal Immigrants; he issued an Executive order to extend E-Verify till March 06, 2009.
Therefore, E-Verify is active today in the system.
Now, House and Senate Republicans want to permanently extend E-Verify after March 06, 2009; especially the antis and yes NumbersUSA.So, they added this amendment to extend E-Verify for additional 4 years in the Stimulus Bill that passed this Wednesday.
However, the Stimulus Bill has to pass the Senate to become law. Thus, permanent extension of E-Verify has nothing to do with giving Stimulus money to only legal immigrants. It, is just that two immigrant hating politicians added the clause to the bill; in the hopes of seeing it pass. But IT SHOULD FAIL!!!
How is e-Verify going to affect legal immigrants ?
hair Taking Care of a Tattoo
Googler
07-20 12:53 AM
But this won't be easy "Do you want us to compromise on national security", will be the first question asked . They will acknowledge the applicants pain and won't budge . "We know thousands like you are getting screwed for many years, but national security is foremost'.
Man, these forums are getting chaotic -- we need a reorganization so that duplicative threads are avoided. Namecheck probably needs its own subforum.
I didn't want to re-post what I said in the name check sticky thread, so here is a link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=126248&postcount=351.
As for the argument that the name check process enhances national security that is not really true.
(a) how is national security enhanced by having someone sit around renewing their EAD hanging out in the country year after year -- they should really be hurrying if they are so worried about the risk we pose.
(b) there is considerable internal debate about the usefulness of the "reference file" part of the check; the part that causes these huge delays. Read the name check section of the Ombudsmans 2007 report.
(c) if national security is being preserved by this process why isn't it fully funded through appropriations?? Surely catching a terrorist is worth more than the $2 per application that USCIS pays FBI.
(d) if national security is being preserved by this process, then why is FBI complaining (see recent press reports) that only 30 analysts are available for this reference file part of the analysis?
(e) Sec. Chertoff is always yammering on about "risk based" national security policy -- the FBI namecheck process is the opposite of risk based policy. See Ombudsman's 2007 report again.
Also note that 8 USC 1571 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001571----000-.html) states very clearly that "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application". Congress did not intend that the process should stretch on for years upon years. 8 USC 1571 was not stricken after the new name check guidelines were put into place.
These are all points that we have to hammer on -- to the press, to congress to absolutely everyone who says hi to us.
This should be a campaign as large as the one for the visa bulletin fiasco because the effect of the FBI Name Check is as devastating if not more devastating than the visa bulletin fiasco.
All these years we had no choice but to believe the BS that was trotted out by FBI (google Cannon, Garrity testimony) about how most records were done by the time you made your morning coffee, what are you thowing a tantrum about my lovely etc. I really sat up when I read the 2007 Ombudsmans report which finally provided data to support what so many people had been complaining about for years. Now no one can deny that the scale of the problem is unpardonably large.
Man, these forums are getting chaotic -- we need a reorganization so that duplicative threads are avoided. Namecheck probably needs its own subforum.
I didn't want to re-post what I said in the name check sticky thread, so here is a link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=126248&postcount=351.
As for the argument that the name check process enhances national security that is not really true.
(a) how is national security enhanced by having someone sit around renewing their EAD hanging out in the country year after year -- they should really be hurrying if they are so worried about the risk we pose.
(b) there is considerable internal debate about the usefulness of the "reference file" part of the check; the part that causes these huge delays. Read the name check section of the Ombudsmans 2007 report.
(c) if national security is being preserved by this process why isn't it fully funded through appropriations?? Surely catching a terrorist is worth more than the $2 per application that USCIS pays FBI.
(d) if national security is being preserved by this process, then why is FBI complaining (see recent press reports) that only 30 analysts are available for this reference file part of the analysis?
(e) Sec. Chertoff is always yammering on about "risk based" national security policy -- the FBI namecheck process is the opposite of risk based policy. See Ombudsman's 2007 report again.
Also note that 8 USC 1571 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001571----000-.html) states very clearly that "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application". Congress did not intend that the process should stretch on for years upon years. 8 USC 1571 was not stricken after the new name check guidelines were put into place.
These are all points that we have to hammer on -- to the press, to congress to absolutely everyone who says hi to us.
This should be a campaign as large as the one for the visa bulletin fiasco because the effect of the FBI Name Check is as devastating if not more devastating than the visa bulletin fiasco.
All these years we had no choice but to believe the BS that was trotted out by FBI (google Cannon, Garrity testimony) about how most records were done by the time you made your morning coffee, what are you thowing a tantrum about my lovely etc. I really sat up when I read the 2007 Ombudsmans report which finally provided data to support what so many people had been complaining about for years. Now no one can deny that the scale of the problem is unpardonably large.
more...
Refugee_New
01-26 07:56 PM
Folks,
I am not getting my hopes too high about the EB-485 processing dates--either for the TSC or the NSC. Correct me if I am wrong...but I think that this huge progress in the EB 485 processing dates can be attributed to the fact that EB2 (India) is retrogressed and even unavailable (currently) and EB 3 (India) is also regtrogressed, and of course, not to mention China. So, perhaps both the service centers are processing EB 485's for ROW--and thus this quite impressive forward move.
If at some point India's EB2 and 3 priority dates move by a great leap beyond what it is now (ie., if the centers start processing the July 2007 VB submissions of EB2 and 3) , then should not we expect that the processing dates of the two centers be back-logged again and thus retrogressed?
What so you folks think? Thanks.
You are right. When the dates are U, processing dates become Current and vice versa.
I am not getting my hopes too high about the EB-485 processing dates--either for the TSC or the NSC. Correct me if I am wrong...but I think that this huge progress in the EB 485 processing dates can be attributed to the fact that EB2 (India) is retrogressed and even unavailable (currently) and EB 3 (India) is also regtrogressed, and of course, not to mention China. So, perhaps both the service centers are processing EB 485's for ROW--and thus this quite impressive forward move.
If at some point India's EB2 and 3 priority dates move by a great leap beyond what it is now (ie., if the centers start processing the July 2007 VB submissions of EB2 and 3) , then should not we expect that the processing dates of the two centers be back-logged again and thus retrogressed?
What so you folks think? Thanks.
You are right. When the dates are U, processing dates become Current and vice versa.
hot holy spirit tattoos
pdx_Soft_Eng
07-10 12:33 AM
as far as I know, since she had H1B already with her previous company, she can get a new H1B right now. She doesn't have to wait for Oct 2007. However, the time she spent on H4 is also used against her H1B time since H1 and H4 are both H visas and everybody gets 6 years in total. You should use this info at yor own risk. Double check with a lawyer. Maybe other members can confirm my response as well...
more...
house The Holy Spirit Descends on
txh1b
09-10 02:15 PM
Online case status is not always right. There is no risk if you apply for another AP other than losing the money. You have to wait for the AP to be approved though before you travel.
tattoo holy spirit tattoos. holy
prioritydate
08-14 12:33 PM
yes u are
And what is that??
And what is that??
more...
pictures Son and the Holy Spirit
bluekayal
10-17 08:15 AM
thanks for clarifying.
dresses the Holy Spirit tattoo.
rbalaji5
02-09 04:12 PM
Hi Bojja,
Do I need a canadian visa to go to Canada.?.
Thnx.
Do I need a canadian visa to go to Canada.?.
Thnx.
more...
makeup Quot Holy Spirit Tattoo Quot
ramaonline
09-27 09:46 PM
approved i140 only allows h1 extensions for self and h4 extn for spouse. spouse must independently qualify for h1 extension beyond 6 years -pl confirm with an immig attny
girlfriend holy spirit tattoos in,tattoo
gimme Green!!
06-14 04:54 PM
On what basis does I-485 get processed?
Is it based on Labor application (Priority Date) or by date of receipt of I-485 application? :confused:
Or by luck of the draw?:cool:
Is it based on Labor application (Priority Date) or by date of receipt of I-485 application? :confused:
Or by luck of the draw?:cool:
hairstyles the Holy Spirit and also
moe
02-04 11:26 AM
hi everyone..i try to long sotry short.i came here 2001 with b1 then i stay since date.. 2004 my employer apply for gc. so far i got my i 140 approved notice about about 1 year ago..
but law we have to wait.they my lawyer said we have wait mayby long time.. my case date is april 2006 ..
Q1-do i have rigth to work here now?
Q2-do i have to wait realy long time?
Q3- can i do anything for waiting time shorter?
MY lawyer is good man but i can even talk to him when i need
but law we have to wait.they my lawyer said we have wait mayby long time.. my case date is april 2006 ..
Q1-do i have rigth to work here now?
Q2-do i have to wait realy long time?
Q3- can i do anything for waiting time shorter?
MY lawyer is good man but i can even talk to him when i need
leo2606
10-29 04:43 PM
I did some mistakes when I went for Visa intervew in March 2007, I have done a new form on line and printed again.If they have not changed the usage of online DS-156 you could do the same thing.
Guys
I entered Passport Issuing city as Bangalore instead of Washington DC in DS-156 form, I am not able to update these fields as they are locked. I cant cancel this appointment as I have already done once before and if I cancel again I wont be able to book for another 3 months. What do I do? Please respond if you have any answers. Will calling the New Delhi customer support line help?
Thanks
Guys
I entered Passport Issuing city as Bangalore instead of Washington DC in DS-156 form, I am not able to update these fields as they are locked. I cant cancel this appointment as I have already done once before and if I cancel again I wont be able to book for another 3 months. What do I do? Please respond if you have any answers. Will calling the New Delhi customer support line help?
Thanks
DirCls
07-15 08:05 AM
They are entitled fro thier opinior and so are we as immigrants.
We are doing a great job so far, but have to do better.
Long live IV Core and its members!
We are doing a great job so far, but have to do better.
Long live IV Core and its members!
No comments:
Post a Comment