rex
04-25 11:00 AM
hello folks,
I am switching jobs after an approved I140 and over 180 days from 485 receipt.
I am expecting no problems when leaving my current company. but just incase they decide to revoke my 140,
- is it ok to file AC21 after i receive the NOID if some thing happens or is it better to file AC21 now?
one other complication is i will be changing address too. how long does it take for USCIS to update my new address in their records? the reason i am asking is if they send me RFE or NOID, i will totally miss the boat if they send it to the wrong address. i am sure they will send a copy to my attorney, but he works form my current employer and I will assume he is less likely to help. Does it help if i file G28 with my own name and my new address?
I need to join my new job in 10 days and i hev give my crrent company a notice so it is a bit urgent. Please help.
Thank you
Rex
I am switching jobs after an approved I140 and over 180 days from 485 receipt.
I am expecting no problems when leaving my current company. but just incase they decide to revoke my 140,
- is it ok to file AC21 after i receive the NOID if some thing happens or is it better to file AC21 now?
one other complication is i will be changing address too. how long does it take for USCIS to update my new address in their records? the reason i am asking is if they send me RFE or NOID, i will totally miss the boat if they send it to the wrong address. i am sure they will send a copy to my attorney, but he works form my current employer and I will assume he is less likely to help. Does it help if i file G28 with my own name and my new address?
I need to join my new job in 10 days and i hev give my crrent company a notice so it is a bit urgent. Please help.
Thank you
Rex
wallpaper Download Magic Kingdom
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
snathan
05-07 12:06 AM
No they did not book any charges against me..How could they that? We did nothing illegal. It is just the whole episode took place ..It has shaken me and my family.
I donot know any lawyer.. Moreover, I am not sure whether it is advisable to go to a lawyer or not... not sure how major the issue is for them..
Moreover, will this affect my Green card process if I start suing these govt. people?
I am just confused...
If you feel you are offended and religiously hurt you can give a try. Some time back MCD was sued for cooking frys in the same oil where they cook chicken. In this country people will only understand law suite.
I donot know any lawyer.. Moreover, I am not sure whether it is advisable to go to a lawyer or not... not sure how major the issue is for them..
Moreover, will this affect my Green card process if I start suing these govt. people?
I am just confused...
If you feel you are offended and religiously hurt you can give a try. Some time back MCD was sued for cooking frys in the same oil where they cook chicken. In this country people will only understand law suite.
2011 magic kingdom castle wallpaper. Nights doubletree castle
IfYouSeekAmy
01-11 03:43 PM
I disagree. DV may not have relevance to you but to a person who does not have an advance degree but still would like to come here to live,work and have a better standard of life it is still VERY relevant. Remember that this country was built by IMMIGRANTS not neccessarily by immigrants with advanced degrees.
NO co-sponsors. This bill is going nowhere, even though I will jump with joy if it is passed. DV has no relevance right now and the country is diverse enough. Good idea to eliminate DV and add that to EB, but not going to happen. This congress is going to be a crab jar, one climbing up and others pulling down... nothing will get done.
NO co-sponsors. This bill is going nowhere, even though I will jump with joy if it is passed. DV has no relevance right now and the country is diverse enough. Good idea to eliminate DV and add that to EB, but not going to happen. This congress is going to be a crab jar, one climbing up and others pulling down... nothing will get done.
more...
suryamanikanth
04-17 02:23 PM
OP already mentioned the change was expected in the NOC list [On-Demand occupation list of Alberta]. Nobody told it would be closed after April 15. Did you see all the postings here before blaming others?
hey dude there's nothing in the url u posted once go to the website and click the the pressure list url.that is the actual Noc codes that are active.Today morning when i spoke to the immigraton officer in alberta he was the one who told me ok.
hey dude there's nothing in the url u posted once go to the website and click the the pressure list url.that is the actual Noc codes that are active.Today morning when i spoke to the immigraton officer in alberta he was the one who told me ok.
pappu
09-22 07:12 PM
Title: Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 9/21/2010)
Cosponsors Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] -
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] -
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] -
Introduced in the Senate.
This bill will give companies a two-year holiday from their share of Social Security payroll withholding taxes for each employee they hire to replace a worker at a foreign-based facility. The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act would bar companies from taking tax credits or deductions for the cost of closing a U.S.-based facility to move the operation overseas.Companies could still take deductions for severance and job placement services for employees who lose their jobs as a result of a U.S. plant closing. Under the legislation, companies that close a U.S.-based business and expand it overseas would no longer be allowed to defer U.S. income taxes on foreign subsidiaries.
Reid has the option to set up a procedural vote next week
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 9/21/2010)
Cosponsors Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] -
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] -
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] -
Introduced in the Senate.
This bill will give companies a two-year holiday from their share of Social Security payroll withholding taxes for each employee they hire to replace a worker at a foreign-based facility. The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act would bar companies from taking tax credits or deductions for the cost of closing a U.S.-based facility to move the operation overseas.Companies could still take deductions for severance and job placement services for employees who lose their jobs as a result of a U.S. plant closing. Under the legislation, companies that close a U.S.-based business and expand it overseas would no longer be allowed to defer U.S. income taxes on foreign subsidiaries.
Reid has the option to set up a procedural vote next week
more...
howzatt
07-16 01:44 PM
I beg to disagree - I think if you read between the lines it is quite clear that potential solutions are being discussed. A solution may be announced but NOT within the 24 hrs that we all are expecting. It may lead to a deadlock in which case the lawsuit would be one of our recourse.
I think we all got a little carried away by the 24HR time frame from Core.
Whats new about this news? We have been hearing this since Thursday evening.
I think we all got a little carried away by the 24HR time frame from Core.
Whats new about this news? We have been hearing this since Thursday evening.
2010 magic kingdom castle wallpaper. Cinderella Castle in the sky
rongha_2000
10-02 11:57 AM
You may be generally right about this, but in my case the attorney fees are borne by my company and it is my company who advised me to apply for EAD and still said that they will maintain my H1 till my AOS is approved, and thats where all these questions started popping in my mind.
The only real reason why your lawyer wanted you to apply for EAD is to collect their fees. If you are maintaining H1, there is no need to EAD. If you lose your job, you will most likely have time to get an EAD, or you may even end up doing an H1 transfer.
The only real reason why your lawyer wanted you to apply for EAD is to collect their fees. If you are maintaining H1, there is no need to EAD. If you lose your job, you will most likely have time to get an EAD, or you may even end up doing an H1 transfer.
more...
unaikax
01-04 07:58 PM
I am going to lodge a complaint with EPFO for PF/Gratuity using the following link
EPFO (http://www.epfindia.nic.in/grievance.htm)
EPFO (http://www.epfindia.nic.in/grievance.htm)
hair magic kingdom castle wallpaper. But watching the castle
genius
12-14 08:06 PM
Unfortunately,kaplan doesnt issue I-20's anymore.
Are you sure than ,while the H1B is being processed ,you can live here legally?
Also what if I get use premium processing and get my H1B approved earlier,would I be able to start work before Oct 1st?
My OPT expires in May 2007 and I have my Masters from here...
Thanks in advance!!!
Are you sure than ,while the H1B is being processed ,you can live here legally?
Also what if I get use premium processing and get my H1B approved earlier,would I be able to start work before Oct 1st?
My OPT expires in May 2007 and I have my Masters from here...
Thanks in advance!!!
more...
shreekarthik
06-10 05:56 PM
Can anyone help with advice? Talk about frustration! I qualify for EB2 since I have a masters degree (and also more than 5 years of experience in my field). I could qualify for EB2 except that my job description "prefers" (rather than "requires") a masters degree. The language prevents my compay from filing EB2, yet my job responsibilities are such that they certaily warrant a masters degree. My compay doesn't want to change my position or wording even though they clearly know (through my explanations) that that means adding close to 5-6 years to the wait! They also fail to see that making me wait so long also affects them because the company cannot promote me or chage my responsibilities for the duration of the wait! Has anyone been through the same situation?
They get a well qualified employee at a lower salary for a longer period of time. If they don't listen try to find an employer that could file u at EB-2.
They get a well qualified employee at a lower salary for a longer period of time. If they don't listen try to find an employer that could file u at EB-2.
hot magic kingdom castle cartoon.
pappu
03-05 10:56 AM
I am an IT consultant
What is the probable Approval date for this application?
My details:
EB2-labor 09/2006.
I-140 SRC078XXXXXXX(Texas)
Reciept: 02/27/2007
Notice: 07/31/2007
Priority:09/01/2006
section: Member of professional w/adv degree or of exceptional ability . Sec203(b)(2)
I-485:# SRC08-008-53-XXX(Texas:2008:eight day from 09/01/2008)
Recieved:08/14/2007
Notice :09/11/2007
Section: Adjustment as direct beneficiary of imigrant petition.
Finger Printing:12/20/2007
Could you please add that in your profile as well
What is the probable Approval date for this application?
My details:
EB2-labor 09/2006.
I-140 SRC078XXXXXXX(Texas)
Reciept: 02/27/2007
Notice: 07/31/2007
Priority:09/01/2006
section: Member of professional w/adv degree or of exceptional ability . Sec203(b)(2)
I-485:# SRC08-008-53-XXX(Texas:2008:eight day from 09/01/2008)
Recieved:08/14/2007
Notice :09/11/2007
Section: Adjustment as direct beneficiary of imigrant petition.
Finger Printing:12/20/2007
Could you please add that in your profile as well
more...
house magic kingdom castle.
nabs501
07-27 08:04 PM
I am curious to know this as I quit company A and moved to company B after I got my I140 approved from Company A
And the HR from Company A specifically told me that they would revoke my I140.
But my case status online says that the application has been sent to DoS for visa processing.
It's been more than 3 months I quit Company A.
Probably, it would show up under the case status that I140 has been revoked or something like that.
Anyone has any exp. regarding this?
And the HR from Company A specifically told me that they would revoke my I140.
But my case status online says that the application has been sent to DoS for visa processing.
It's been more than 3 months I quit Company A.
Probably, it would show up under the case status that I140 has been revoked or something like that.
Anyone has any exp. regarding this?
tattoo magic kingdom castle. partyBoy
eb3retro
03-30 04:25 PM
did 5 trips in the past 2 years (few of them official) using AP. Changed jobs twice in EAD not filed ac21. As long as you have valid AP, you are good to go to enter. make sure you remain calm and answer any questions in POE. You will be fine.
more...
pictures magic kingdom castle. Allyse
NKR
03-17 01:02 PM
I have a priority date of March 2004 (EB2 India) and I am still waiting for my Green Card. I think majority of the 2004 filers are in the same boat except for a lucky few who were able to get the green card after the July fiasco.
Good Luck!!
I agree. Remember there were two backlog elimination centers and the processing from Philly center was slow. So a person with a later 2004 EB2 PD application and whose LC was cleared from Dallas must have got his GC where as someone with an earlier PD was stuck in Philly. Most of the Dallas guys got their GC around that time.
Good Luck!!
I agree. Remember there were two backlog elimination centers and the processing from Philly center was slow. So a person with a later 2004 EB2 PD application and whose LC was cleared from Dallas must have got his GC where as someone with an earlier PD was stuck in Philly. Most of the Dallas guys got their GC around that time.
dresses December 2010. Fireworks
radhagd
05-15 12:14 PM
Thanks for your reply.
My understanding is there can be only one AOS at any time.
- So if the AOS is applied based on the EB3 140, can another AOS be filed based on EB2?
- If a AOS has been applied based on EB3, can it be "upgraded" to EB2 ??
Thanks.
Yes you can file more than one AOS simultaneously and withdraw other one once I485 is approved.
My understanding is there can be only one AOS at any time.
- So if the AOS is applied based on the EB3 140, can another AOS be filed based on EB2?
- If a AOS has been applied based on EB3, can it be "upgraded" to EB2 ??
Thanks.
Yes you can file more than one AOS simultaneously and withdraw other one once I485 is approved.
more...
makeup magic kingdom castle wallpaper
santb1975
03-24 12:37 PM
I am listening to this now
girlfriend magic kingdom castle. vijju123
Slowhand
05-08 05:05 PM
What if your old employer cancels your I-140? In that case wouldn't it be better to have informed USCIS that you changed jobs?
hairstyles magic kingdom castle logo.
IfYouSeekAmy
01-11 03:43 PM
I disagree. DV may not have relevance to you but to a person who does not have an advance degree but still would like to come here to live,work and have a better standard of life it is still VERY relevant. Remember that this country was built by IMMIGRANTS not neccessarily by immigrants with advanced degrees.
NO co-sponsors. This bill is going nowhere, even though I will jump with joy if it is passed. DV has no relevance right now and the country is diverse enough. Good idea to eliminate DV and add that to EB, but not going to happen. This congress is going to be a crab jar, one climbing up and others pulling down... nothing will get done.
NO co-sponsors. This bill is going nowhere, even though I will jump with joy if it is passed. DV has no relevance right now and the country is diverse enough. Good idea to eliminate DV and add that to EB, but not going to happen. This congress is going to be a crab jar, one climbing up and others pulling down... nothing will get done.
sledge_hammer
06-15 03:44 PM
Hi kak1978,
what's the process for getting the "Account verification letter for Immigration purposes" from BOA?
Thanks!
I had a account in Bank of America, and they sent me a letter when i asked them to send a "Account verification letter for Immigration purposes" They charged me $10 for that and took around a week. See if you can open a account at a local bank and try transfering the money to that account, Before you decide on opening a account , confirm if they issue such a letter.
what's the process for getting the "Account verification letter for Immigration purposes" from BOA?
Thanks!
I had a account in Bank of America, and they sent me a letter when i asked them to send a "Account verification letter for Immigration purposes" They charged me $10 for that and took around a week. See if you can open a account at a local bank and try transfering the money to that account, Before you decide on opening a account , confirm if they issue such a letter.
wandmaker
08-11 06:45 PM
For example, for my I-140 under EB2-NIW, NSC processing date shows February 27, 2007; and I filed in April 2007. But, I got approved. (no complaints). Technically, they shouldn't have picked up mine.
You are lucky to have your 140 approved :) There are many people that I know, whos files are still waiting to be dusted.
See, quasi-citizens i.e., people applying for Naturalization have better luck because their local congressman will be making calls and putting fire under USCIS ass because these are potential voters in November. So, they have some leverage. But people who are waiting for green card are no good now... wait for 5 years after you get it, you may have luck in getting their attention.
Focus your energy on IV activites (state chapter, campaign and etc), spend time with the family, and live your day to day life. We will get there soon enough with everyones' support ($$$$)
You are lucky to have your 140 approved :) There are many people that I know, whos files are still waiting to be dusted.
See, quasi-citizens i.e., people applying for Naturalization have better luck because their local congressman will be making calls and putting fire under USCIS ass because these are potential voters in November. So, they have some leverage. But people who are waiting for green card are no good now... wait for 5 years after you get it, you may have luck in getting their attention.
Focus your energy on IV activites (state chapter, campaign and etc), spend time with the family, and live your day to day life. We will get there soon enough with everyones' support ($$$$)
No comments:
Post a Comment