logiclife
03-25 09:19 AM
OF times of india.
Let us flood their office with phone calls asking them to stop publishing articles that dont make sense and put stuff up there that representative of both the side of the debate.
Does this brainiac know that how many businesses have shut down due to lack of unskilled low-wage workers especially in the argicultural businesses? Not that its our job to make arguments favoring illegals - we have our own problems to deal with - however this article is titled wrongly and not supported by facts.
I have never read timesofindia in last 2 years because of irritant 100 million pop ups of phonecards and airline tickets. The website just is basically not the same thing as print edition. The website looks like a tabloit coverpage.
--Jay.
Let us flood their office with phone calls asking them to stop publishing articles that dont make sense and put stuff up there that representative of both the side of the debate.
Does this brainiac know that how many businesses have shut down due to lack of unskilled low-wage workers especially in the argicultural businesses? Not that its our job to make arguments favoring illegals - we have our own problems to deal with - however this article is titled wrongly and not supported by facts.
I have never read timesofindia in last 2 years because of irritant 100 million pop ups of phonecards and airline tickets. The website just is basically not the same thing as print edition. The website looks like a tabloit coverpage.
--Jay.
wallpaper Wallpapers - Ford Mustang
bbct
02-11 08:05 PM
http://www.thedegreepeople.com/eb-petition.html
So go ahead on sign in the petition. Dont know how far it goes but atleast it does something good.
I get a message "Remote submissions are not allowed."
So go ahead on sign in the petition. Dont know how far it goes but atleast it does something good.
I get a message "Remote submissions are not allowed."
ggc
08-18 01:38 PM
Thank you for your reply. It was not arrest record. My attorney says "if immigration office explicitly asks about this incident then only give that information otherwise not".
But in I485 document (page3) it has around 14 questions, during the interview do they ask all these questions verbally or do they just ask us sign this document or do they ask something else?
I heard they take oath from us, is that oath same as those questions in I485?
But in I485 document (page3) it has around 14 questions, during the interview do they ask all these questions verbally or do they just ask us sign this document or do they ask something else?
I heard they take oath from us, is that oath same as those questions in I485?
2011 ford mustang gt 2011 wallpaper
.jpg "2011 Ford Mustang Gt")
leoindiano
06-30 05:07 PM
I am prepared to file around 15th. Not pushing my lawyer due to this madness. PD will come back into picture again irrespective what comes out on monday or tuesday.
Go & Chill
Go & Chill
more...
reddog
06-25 01:09 PM
Me and my group of friends have used this method and the photos look better than the Walgreen/CVS ones. And they are already on US passports/other stuff.
http://www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=22 Photoshop/GIMP required.
Another cheap place is Sams Club, if you dont have a digital camera(pun intended) they give 3 photos for 5 bucks.
http://www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=22 Photoshop/GIMP required.
Another cheap place is Sams Club, if you dont have a digital camera(pun intended) they give 3 photos for 5 bucks.
vandanaverdia
09-09 03:13 PM
^^^ bump ^^^
more...
Iamthejuggler
01-22 05:48 AM
Well ...
"Click in the flash to activate it and move the mouse to rotate the camera." sounds mighty fine to me. Thanks kirupa :)
"Click in the flash to activate it and move the mouse to rotate the camera." sounds mighty fine to me. Thanks kirupa :)
2010 2011 Ford Mustang V6
GKBest
12-26 06:31 PM
Context is very important here. IRS has its own rules, USCIS has got its own and then universities have their own set of rules. I have had a lot of fight with university to get in-state tution fee on H-4 visa. So please explain your context and I can shed some more light on this topic (based on my own experience).
Can you tell me more about your fight with universities in getting an instate tuition under H-4? My son have been a CA resident for the past 7 years and has studied in CA schools. Doesn't this qualify him for an in-state tuition? What documents does he need to present to the university to show that he is qualified?
Can you tell me more about your fight with universities in getting an instate tuition under H-4? My son have been a CA resident for the past 7 years and has studied in CA schools. Doesn't this qualify him for an in-state tuition? What documents does he need to present to the university to show that he is qualified?
more...
techskill
08-10 04:55 PM
Guys,
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
Correct me if i am wrong. In May Visa bulletin the PD date was April 2004 and in June 13 th Visa bulletin it was Current for July filer and after that everybody knows about the fiasco. How come you filed in June when your PD was not current (Your PD in mail is Dec 2005)?
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
Correct me if i am wrong. In May Visa bulletin the PD date was April 2004 and in June 13 th Visa bulletin it was Current for July filer and after that everybody knows about the fiasco. How come you filed in June when your PD was not current (Your PD in mail is Dec 2005)?
hair 2011 Ford Mustang Gt
rvr_jcop
03-27 12:51 PM
I feel the same... but I'm not sure if I am ready to go back just yet. I spent beyond my means to get my masters and spent a couple of years just paying it back.
I might have some left in me to try again one more time and hoping that some reforms would happen which would help me then.
But yeah, I am not sure if I'll really go after that h1 if I have to go for stamping now.
pal :)
Oh, and also, consider the 'risk' involved in the underlying 485. If you have everything in place and all the documents such as LCA are proper, proved A2P etc...then the risk should be negligible. But again, you know that better than us. Good Luck.
In my case, I decided enough is enough. I am going back 'home' should something happen to my 485., in fact with a big smile.
I might have some left in me to try again one more time and hoping that some reforms would happen which would help me then.
But yeah, I am not sure if I'll really go after that h1 if I have to go for stamping now.
pal :)
Oh, and also, consider the 'risk' involved in the underlying 485. If you have everything in place and all the documents such as LCA are proper, proved A2P etc...then the risk should be negligible. But again, you know that better than us. Good Luck.
In my case, I decided enough is enough. I am going back 'home' should something happen to my 485., in fact with a big smile.
more...
deecha
06-17 01:20 PM
So if i created an app and sold it, wouldn't i be working for myself and deriving financial compensation?
He could have developed the app outside the united states. He could have written the app in his spare time (He is not being paid to do it, maybe just a hobby). When he sells the app., it is not a salary. It is more like a dividend or rent (An H1B/F1/etc. can legally own property and derive rent .. it is not employment income). Furthermore, he can set up a LLC or an INC and sell the app through that but he should not have worked for that company while developing that app.
Lots of ways to get around it. Most laws are subject to interpretation and they're not absolute. If laws were absolute, we'd all be in the grip of tyranny and be slaves. There are only a few natural laws that are absolute.
As one person said on one of the threads (I think EB2 vs EB3), there is a tendency for people to achieve something and then set the bar just below them to exclude other people from competing with them either through laws or deprivation of resources (History is replete with such examples .. look at the kind of laws and regulations people are trying to pass). We must guard against such behavior/attitude and allow everyone a fair chance to succeed in life.
He could have developed the app outside the united states. He could have written the app in his spare time (He is not being paid to do it, maybe just a hobby). When he sells the app., it is not a salary. It is more like a dividend or rent (An H1B/F1/etc. can legally own property and derive rent .. it is not employment income). Furthermore, he can set up a LLC or an INC and sell the app through that but he should not have worked for that company while developing that app.
Lots of ways to get around it. Most laws are subject to interpretation and they're not absolute. If laws were absolute, we'd all be in the grip of tyranny and be slaves. There are only a few natural laws that are absolute.
As one person said on one of the threads (I think EB2 vs EB3), there is a tendency for people to achieve something and then set the bar just below them to exclude other people from competing with them either through laws or deprivation of resources (History is replete with such examples .. look at the kind of laws and regulations people are trying to pass). We must guard against such behavior/attitude and allow everyone a fair chance to succeed in life.
hot in the 2011 Ford Mustang
ncrtpMay2004
07-03 06:38 AM
Got appt notice (for 7th)
2 days later appt cancellation notice
5 days later got a new appt notice (for 22nd)
2 days later appt cancellation notice
5 days later got a new appt notice (for 22nd)
more...
house First Drive: 2011 Ford Mustang
gcdreamer05
08-11 11:26 AM
Guys,
We have to come up with some numbers so we can plan our life ahead. Please vote only if your Application is pending. This is not for EB3-I who are already approved.
Thanks.
It is so pathetic to see ppl with 2001 PD have still not got GC in EB3, then what will happen to people like me who are in 2005 PD Eb3 :confused:
We have to come up with some numbers so we can plan our life ahead. Please vote only if your Application is pending. This is not for EB3-I who are already approved.
Thanks.
It is so pathetic to see ppl with 2001 PD have still not got GC in EB3, then what will happen to people like me who are in 2005 PD Eb3 :confused:
tattoo 2011 Ford Mustang GT Image
h1techSlave
04-15 09:39 AM
There is already one for this.
CAn some one create survey for this?
CAn some one create survey for this?
more...
pictures 2011 Ford Mustang GT Wallpaper
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
dresses 2011 Ford Mustang Gt
dilusa1
07-18 08:43 PM
Thanks for great services..
My situation is as under : " My case is in removal proceedings for violating H1b status for 3 months due to laid off situation, i am working on H1b now and my labor is approved and I-140 is pending, now my priority date is become current for I-485 filing", now who will adjudicate my case, INS or EOIR court, where will i file my I-485.
will court close my removal proceedings based on PD current..
i will really really apprecate your help.
My situation is as under : " My case is in removal proceedings for violating H1b status for 3 months due to laid off situation, i am working on H1b now and my labor is approved and I-140 is pending, now my priority date is become current for I-485 filing", now who will adjudicate my case, INS or EOIR court, where will i file my I-485.
will court close my removal proceedings based on PD current..
i will really really apprecate your help.
more...
makeup the 2011 Ford Mustang GT
franklin
06-15 12:33 AM
Hi
Can I file for the I-485 before july 1st 2007?
I doing my medical exam next week on the 20th, that's the earliest i could get in MA.
However i'm going to do my x-ray tomorrow, because i always test positive after the TB test, but x-ray negative. Does it hurt to do the x-ray earlier that the actual TB test (PPD)? my doctor said it does not hurt and he will accept it. Does any one know if there going to be a problem with that ?
thanks for your help.
Not if your priority date became current in the July bulletin, no
It doesn't hurt to get the medical out of the way at all - its valid (from what I've read here) for 1 year. I did mine last month before my PD became current on June 1st
Can I file for the I-485 before july 1st 2007?
I doing my medical exam next week on the 20th, that's the earliest i could get in MA.
However i'm going to do my x-ray tomorrow, because i always test positive after the TB test, but x-ray negative. Does it hurt to do the x-ray earlier that the actual TB test (PPD)? my doctor said it does not hurt and he will accept it. Does any one know if there going to be a problem with that ?
thanks for your help.
Not if your priority date became current in the July bulletin, no
It doesn't hurt to get the medical out of the way at all - its valid (from what I've read here) for 1 year. I did mine last month before my PD became current on June 1st
girlfriend 2011 Ford Mustang GT
vin13
01-21 08:41 AM
You can go for any reason. I recently got back using AP. They just verify if your AP is valid and let you in.
hairstyles 2011 Ford Mustang GT Wallpaper
GotGC??
01-13 12:04 AM
You know bro, I know my share of swear words, and definitely know how to pick a fight. But this is NOT the time.
I'd be the happiest person if we can achieve the goal of blanket I-485 filing. I just hope we can pull it through. The options I mentioned are backup options, in case it wasn't palatable to some. With my PD, a blanket I-485 is my only chance. I should have put this disclosure (for the benefit of those who are generous in using the "selfish" word).
I was just testing the waters, but looks like the mood is "nothing short of a I-485 filing". I wish us luck and will keep my fingers crossed. This will be my last post on this.
Let's come back after 2/15 and check how you feel then. "Cheerful? Joyful? or Zealous? or Joyless, depressed?"
Probably,all this criterias already matching to your case, right ?
If you're on H1 on 4 years, have been suffering from not able file 485, and if the legislation says "6 years on H1" or whatever year on 140, how would you feel? Cheerful? Joyful? or Zealous? or Joyless, depressed?
You're just a selfish guy to cover your asz, right?
Are you planning to get some benefit from your brother's delayed cases?
It's time to comply, time to be unite.
Be simple and support what we have. We don't have that much luxurious to discuss your fantasies even though here is a free platform, yet it's NOT the TIME.
Thanks for your understanding...
Zbd
I'd be the happiest person if we can achieve the goal of blanket I-485 filing. I just hope we can pull it through. The options I mentioned are backup options, in case it wasn't palatable to some. With my PD, a blanket I-485 is my only chance. I should have put this disclosure (for the benefit of those who are generous in using the "selfish" word).
I was just testing the waters, but looks like the mood is "nothing short of a I-485 filing". I wish us luck and will keep my fingers crossed. This will be my last post on this.
Let's come back after 2/15 and check how you feel then. "Cheerful? Joyful? or Zealous? or Joyless, depressed?"
Probably,all this criterias already matching to your case, right ?
If you're on H1 on 4 years, have been suffering from not able file 485, and if the legislation says "6 years on H1" or whatever year on 140, how would you feel? Cheerful? Joyful? or Zealous? or Joyless, depressed?
You're just a selfish guy to cover your asz, right?
Are you planning to get some benefit from your brother's delayed cases?
It's time to comply, time to be unite.
Be simple and support what we have. We don't have that much luxurious to discuss your fantasies even though here is a free platform, yet it's NOT the TIME.
Thanks for your understanding...
Zbd
gunsnkars
10-17 12:10 PM
Contract - Corp-to-Corp - Slave
Contract - W2 - Slave
Contract to Hire - Independent - Slave
Contract to Hire - Last but not the least "SLAVE"
"Any one with genuine answers"
Contract - W2 - Slave
Contract to Hire - Independent - Slave
Contract to Hire - Last but not the least "SLAVE"
"Any one with genuine answers"
Anders �stberg
May 1st, 2005, 02:26 PM
Very nice, love the "wheel spin". I can see how it would take a couple of shots to get a good one with that shutter speed.
No comments:
Post a Comment