innervoice
01-10 05:57 PM
My son I-485 application got rejected in Sept 07 and the I resubmitted the application in Oct 07 with correct fees, Check got cleared in Dec 07 and received FP notice with appointment due date in Jan 08, but haven't got my I-485 receipt yet, I talked to customer service and she said it showing the application is rejected on Sep 07, and she will made further inquiry and let me know through email. This thing really scared me, Can someone please shed on light on this.
wallpaper Alphabet coloring Pages
thakkarbhav
08-20 09:10 AM
No. Never heard about this type of situation. Can you call customer service center to find out what is going on. Also you are current so something should come on your way....
Hermione
09-25 01:45 PM
hermione,
How to know if name check has been done. Is there a number to call to confirm NC clearance?.
We had FP on 9/19 and saw LUD on 9/20. Called FBI yesterday and they say they sent results to uscis. Does it mean FP and NC clearance? Or NC is a separate entity. Please, let me know
Name check and fingerprint check are different. Fingerprints are generally getting cleared next day. Not the same with namecheck.
How to know if name check has been done. Is there a number to call to confirm NC clearance?.
We had FP on 9/19 and saw LUD on 9/20. Called FBI yesterday and they say they sent results to uscis. Does it mean FP and NC clearance? Or NC is a separate entity. Please, let me know
Name check and fingerprint check are different. Fingerprints are generally getting cleared next day. Not the same with namecheck.
2011 lower case letter e coloring
stucklabor
02-04 04:51 PM
Behind Bush's New Stress on Science, Lobbying by Republican Executives
Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: February 2, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 1 � President Bush's proposal to accelerate spending on basic scientific research came after technology industry executives made the case for such a move in a series of meetings with White House officials, executives involved said Wednesday.
In his State of the Union message Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush called for a doubling within 10 years of the federal commitment to "the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences."
The president's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, said Mr. Bush would request $910 million for the first year of the research initiative, with a commitment to spending $50 billion over 10 years.
Computer scientists have expressed alarm that federal support for basic research is being eroded by shifts toward applied research and shorter-term financing. But in his speech, Mr. Bush pointed to work in supercomputing, nanotechnology and alternative energy sources � subjects that were favorites in the Clinton administration but had not been priorities for the current White House.
What was different this year, according to a number of Capitol Hill lobbyists and Silicon Valley executives, was support on the issue by Republican corporate executives like Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, and John Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems.
Industry officials eager to see a greater government commitment to research held a series of discussions with administration officials late last year that culminated in two meetings in the Old Executive Office Building on Dec. 13.
There, a group led by Mr. Barrett and Norman R. Augustine, a former Lockheed Martin chief executive, met with Vice President Dick Cheney. A second group headed by Charles M. Vest, the former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, met with Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The industry and science leaders told the officials that the administration needed to respond to concerns laid out in a report by a National Academy of Sciences panel headed by Mr. Augustine. It warned of a rapid erosion in science, technology and education that threatened American economic competitiveness.
The report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future," has been circulating in draft form since October. It was put together by a group of top technology and science leaders, who say the country faces a crisis that the Bush administration is ignoring.
"The gravitas of that group," Dr. Vest said, "has a lot to do with how we got as far as we did."
Still, even after the meetings, the executives and educators were not certain that the administration would respond. So President Bush's proposal on Tuesday night came as something of a surprise.
Albert H. Teich, director of science policy for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest professional organization for scientists, called Mr. Bush's proposal "a breath of fresh air."
"We haven't seen this interest in basic research from this president before," Mr. Teich said. "We in the science community have talked about the state of basic research for quite a while, with its flat or declining budgets, and we are hopeful about this initiative."
Mr. Barrett of Intel, according to people who worked with him, had grown particularly frustrated with the lack of progress on the matter.
In a speech to the National Academy of Engineering in October, in which he described the findings of the Gathering Storm report, Mr. Barrett said: "If you look at the achievement of the average 12th-grade student in math and science, which is of interest to us here, that 12th-grader in the U.S. ranks in the bottom 10 percent among their international peers. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to look at that report and help raise our voices collectively to our local officials, state officials and national officials."
The executives said that the administration had also been induced to respond by a growing bipartisan movement in Congress supporting basic research and education.
Two bills tackling this matter have recently been introduced. One is the Protect America's Competitive Edge Act, by Senators Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico; Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico; Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee; and Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland. A similar bill was introduced by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut. Several of the senators met with President Bush in December to encourage him to support the competitiveness legislation.
"We're excited the president has jump-started this and that it is very bipartisan," Dr. Vest said.
Now the technologists and the educators are waiting to see the specifics of the financing when the president's budget is introduced next week. The report had called for an annual 10 percent increase over the next 10 years, and several executives said they now expected a rise of 7 percent annually, putting annual spending around twice the current level in 10 years.
Peter A. Freeman, the National Science Foundation's assistant director for computer and information science and engineering, said the president's initiative would make a big difference.
"We're obviously not at liberty to say what will be in the president's budget next week," Mr. Freeman said, "but we're very hopeful based on the State of the Union address. This is a strong sign that this administration will continue to be very supportive of fundamental science and engineering."
Despite there being little detail yet with precise figures, even those who had been publicly critical of the administration were enthusiastic.
"This is really a huge deal and I'm very encouraged," said David A. Patterson, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is president of the Association for Computing Machinery, a professional group.
At the same time, though, Mr. Patterson was concerned that the president's proposal to double funds for basic research drew little applause from the Congressional audience on Tuesday night. "It just shows the challenge we have," he said. "It wasn't obvious to the legislators."
Warren E. Leary contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: February 2, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 1 � President Bush's proposal to accelerate spending on basic scientific research came after technology industry executives made the case for such a move in a series of meetings with White House officials, executives involved said Wednesday.
In his State of the Union message Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush called for a doubling within 10 years of the federal commitment to "the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences."
The president's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, said Mr. Bush would request $910 million for the first year of the research initiative, with a commitment to spending $50 billion over 10 years.
Computer scientists have expressed alarm that federal support for basic research is being eroded by shifts toward applied research and shorter-term financing. But in his speech, Mr. Bush pointed to work in supercomputing, nanotechnology and alternative energy sources � subjects that were favorites in the Clinton administration but had not been priorities for the current White House.
What was different this year, according to a number of Capitol Hill lobbyists and Silicon Valley executives, was support on the issue by Republican corporate executives like Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, and John Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems.
Industry officials eager to see a greater government commitment to research held a series of discussions with administration officials late last year that culminated in two meetings in the Old Executive Office Building on Dec. 13.
There, a group led by Mr. Barrett and Norman R. Augustine, a former Lockheed Martin chief executive, met with Vice President Dick Cheney. A second group headed by Charles M. Vest, the former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, met with Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The industry and science leaders told the officials that the administration needed to respond to concerns laid out in a report by a National Academy of Sciences panel headed by Mr. Augustine. It warned of a rapid erosion in science, technology and education that threatened American economic competitiveness.
The report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future," has been circulating in draft form since October. It was put together by a group of top technology and science leaders, who say the country faces a crisis that the Bush administration is ignoring.
"The gravitas of that group," Dr. Vest said, "has a lot to do with how we got as far as we did."
Still, even after the meetings, the executives and educators were not certain that the administration would respond. So President Bush's proposal on Tuesday night came as something of a surprise.
Albert H. Teich, director of science policy for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest professional organization for scientists, called Mr. Bush's proposal "a breath of fresh air."
"We haven't seen this interest in basic research from this president before," Mr. Teich said. "We in the science community have talked about the state of basic research for quite a while, with its flat or declining budgets, and we are hopeful about this initiative."
Mr. Barrett of Intel, according to people who worked with him, had grown particularly frustrated with the lack of progress on the matter.
In a speech to the National Academy of Engineering in October, in which he described the findings of the Gathering Storm report, Mr. Barrett said: "If you look at the achievement of the average 12th-grade student in math and science, which is of interest to us here, that 12th-grader in the U.S. ranks in the bottom 10 percent among their international peers. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to look at that report and help raise our voices collectively to our local officials, state officials and national officials."
The executives said that the administration had also been induced to respond by a growing bipartisan movement in Congress supporting basic research and education.
Two bills tackling this matter have recently been introduced. One is the Protect America's Competitive Edge Act, by Senators Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico; Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico; Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee; and Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland. A similar bill was introduced by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut. Several of the senators met with President Bush in December to encourage him to support the competitiveness legislation.
"We're excited the president has jump-started this and that it is very bipartisan," Dr. Vest said.
Now the technologists and the educators are waiting to see the specifics of the financing when the president's budget is introduced next week. The report had called for an annual 10 percent increase over the next 10 years, and several executives said they now expected a rise of 7 percent annually, putting annual spending around twice the current level in 10 years.
Peter A. Freeman, the National Science Foundation's assistant director for computer and information science and engineering, said the president's initiative would make a big difference.
"We're obviously not at liberty to say what will be in the president's budget next week," Mr. Freeman said, "but we're very hopeful based on the State of the Union address. This is a strong sign that this administration will continue to be very supportive of fundamental science and engineering."
Despite there being little detail yet with precise figures, even those who had been publicly critical of the administration were enthusiastic.
"This is really a huge deal and I'm very encouraged," said David A. Patterson, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is president of the Association for Computing Machinery, a professional group.
At the same time, though, Mr. Patterson was concerned that the president's proposal to double funds for basic research drew little applause from the Congressional audience on Tuesday night. "It just shows the challenge we have," he said. "It wasn't obvious to the legislators."
Warren E. Leary contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
more...
GIDOC
07-14 01:46 AM
pmb76,
Good job on your letter to her. I am trying to write one to her also and will use yours as a template.
Good job on your letter to her. I am trying to write one to her also and will use yours as a template.
balimysore
08-06 11:29 AM
Hi Guys (and gals)
My application got approved today. The above posts shows what it was showing and everything. Hope you are in the same boat and your get approved as well. Good luck!
Now at least I know that they do process the cases that were transfered. aat0995: Can you please mention your USCIS receive date for I 140.
Mine was received by NSC on Mar 22, 2007 and transfered to TSC on Apr 29 2008. I am on EB3.
My application got approved today. The above posts shows what it was showing and everything. Hope you are in the same boat and your get approved as well. Good luck!
Now at least I know that they do process the cases that were transfered. aat0995: Can you please mention your USCIS receive date for I 140.
Mine was received by NSC on Mar 22, 2007 and transfered to TSC on Apr 29 2008. I am on EB3.
more...
trueguy
08-28 11:19 AM
Ron sent an inquiry and here is the answer he got
Ron also says
Visa Bulletin says
So I predict the EB3 RoW Oct bulletin will be what it was on June Bulletin but EB3 China and India will not be the same as June bulletin.
When they say "Continued Heavy Demand", what does it mean? Howcome there can be demand with Older Priority Dates? Labor Substitution is no longer possible so there can't be new demand with Older PD. So howcome PD goes back? Does anybody have insight into that?
Ron also says
Visa Bulletin says
So I predict the EB3 RoW Oct bulletin will be what it was on June Bulletin but EB3 China and India will not be the same as June bulletin.
When they say "Continued Heavy Demand", what does it mean? Howcome there can be demand with Older Priority Dates? Labor Substitution is no longer possible so there can't be new demand with Older PD. So howcome PD goes back? Does anybody have insight into that?
2010 elephant #39;e#39; middot; coloring frog
chvs2000@yahoo.com
10-21 09:58 AM
Other alternative is to have your employer run the payroll for 5000 and deduct 500 from your adjusted gross income when you file taxes.
Note that you can only deduct unreimbursed work related expenses when you choose to itemize your deductions.
Note that you can only deduct unreimbursed work related expenses when you choose to itemize your deductions.
more...
vxg
07-17 10:11 AM
Folks,
Last month I called TSC and got a really nice IO. I was checking on my FBI name check status and he told me that he can get more details by A# instead of receipt NO. He in fact found my A# as i only had receipt number handy. He than told me that the FBI checks are cleared and my case is assigned to an IO.
Does case assigned to an IO means that when Visa nos are available i have chance to get GC? Does it mean it is adjudicated and waiting for visa NO?
EB2-I
PD: Jul 2004
I-140 approved
I-485: RD 02 Aug, 2007
Last month I called TSC and got a really nice IO. I was checking on my FBI name check status and he told me that he can get more details by A# instead of receipt NO. He in fact found my A# as i only had receipt number handy. He than told me that the FBI checks are cleared and my case is assigned to an IO.
Does case assigned to an IO means that when Visa nos are available i have chance to get GC? Does it mean it is adjudicated and waiting for visa NO?
EB2-I
PD: Jul 2004
I-140 approved
I-485: RD 02 Aug, 2007
hair Printable Alphabet Coloring
jliechty
May 24th, 2005, 10:00 PM
It's hard to explain, but the first two don't really do anything for me. The third one is certainly a step in the right direction (totally fugly JPEG artifacts ignored), and I think that with a bit of post processing you could really take it in some interesting directions. My eye only notices the deer after a little while; if you wanted to focus more on the deer, you could use a masked adjustment layer to subtly (the key word is subtly - very subtly) darken everything but the animal, and another adjustment layer to add a tiny bit of contrast only to the deer. Of course, QJ will come up with many other and more creative things to try, but that's off the top of my head a few ideas to start with. :)
more...
duncanidaho
02-01 05:48 AM
There is a seperate thread on this. Look it up.
My 2 c:
- Stay away from Murthy. They've screwed up at least 2 cases that I know of. And their response is slow.
- Thomas Fan in MD: Run like you've seen the devil. I have no idea why malpractice suits has not been filed against him yet.
- Clark Trevor in CA - Guy is awesome but expensive.
- Ellen Krengel in CA - Decent.
- Gowda in MI - Slow, inefficient.
- Rajeev Khanna - seems to be good, efficient and responsive.
- Jon Wu, CA - Slow as hell but knows the ins/outs
My 2 c:
- Stay away from Murthy. They've screwed up at least 2 cases that I know of. And their response is slow.
- Thomas Fan in MD: Run like you've seen the devil. I have no idea why malpractice suits has not been filed against him yet.
- Clark Trevor in CA - Guy is awesome but expensive.
- Ellen Krengel in CA - Decent.
- Gowda in MI - Slow, inefficient.
- Rajeev Khanna - seems to be good, efficient and responsive.
- Jon Wu, CA - Slow as hell but knows the ins/outs
hot F letter coloring pages
sledge_hammer
06-29 12:43 PM
^^^^
more...
house letter e coloring pages. Trace and letter c and
Hong12
02-06 02:12 PM
Thank you very much for your help and all the info. I really appreciate it. I actually tried to fill out the Forms DS 156 and DS 157 and got totally lost. The following is my background. I worked at the company A in US as an Electrical Engineer until May, 08 (the end of my 6 year H1). Then, I went back to Malaysia and worked on my family business as a store manager and business owner, selling electrical appliances. My PERM is currently pending over one year now. Accordingly, I got an approval for 1 year and 2 months on my H1. I will now come back to work at company A in US, starting March 5, 09 (the same US company that I worked until May, 08).
I have questions that I am unsure about the Forms DS 156 and DS 157 as the followings:
Form DS 156
- Question 28 (who will pay for your trip): does the trip need to be paid by the US Employer? Can I pay it myself? My concern is I am not sure if I have to pay it myself because of my H1 Status. Pls advise.
- Question 20 (Name and Address of Present Employer or School): I think this should be my current company. In this case, please advise if this should be Company A that I will be start working in March or my family business in Malaysia.
- Question 21 (Present Occupation): should this be Electrical Engineer or Store Manager (Business Owner) for my family business? I actually worked as an Electrical Engineer for over 8 years. I only worked on my family business as a Store manager (Business Owner) for one year. Please advise which one I should put.
- Question 25 (Name and Telephone Numbers of Person in US Who You Will Be Staying With or Visiting for Tourism or Business): I will go back to work at Company A in US, and my brother lives in the same area that I will be working. So, I�ll be staying at my brother�s place. In this case, should this Item be the company A�s address or my brother�s address? Otherwise, should I put �None�?
- Question 29 (Have you ever been in US?):
For How long?: would this be (6 year � 2 months) since I spent 2 month vacation outside US during this past 6 year H1?
Enter Additional Visits to US here: I made 3 trips to Malaysia and 2 trips to Canada during this past 6 years of my H1B. I also made one trip to Canada during my F1 visa. In this case, I�m not sure if this should be the date I returned back to US from my trips to Malaysia and Canada. Should I mention only the trips during my 6 year H1 or mention all the trips, including the period of my F1 Visa?
DS 157
- Question 12 (Not Including Current Employer, List Your Last Two Employers): I worked at company B in US till Jan, 07 and then moved to Company A in US until May, 08 (the end of my 6 year H1). Then, I came back to work on my family business till now. I will go back to work at Company A again in March, 09. I am not sure if my present company is my family business in Malaysia. My future company is Company A that I will start working in March, 09. My two previous companies are Company A that I worked from Jan, 07 to May, 08 and also Company B that I worked before Jan, 07. In this case, should I put Company A (Jan, 07 to May, 08) and Company B (before Jan, 07) as the last two companies? Please advise.
Another issue is that I worked on my family business as a Store Manager (Business Owner) for almost one year. This is not engineering work. Would this cause me any problems for my visa application because I will go back to work with company A as an electrical engineer? Note that I still get work from company A from time to time, but I just did not get pay during this time that I stay in Malaysia. Please advise.
Please help�. I am totally confused and need to use these two forms for the visa interview. Thank you very much.
I have questions that I am unsure about the Forms DS 156 and DS 157 as the followings:
Form DS 156
- Question 28 (who will pay for your trip): does the trip need to be paid by the US Employer? Can I pay it myself? My concern is I am not sure if I have to pay it myself because of my H1 Status. Pls advise.
- Question 20 (Name and Address of Present Employer or School): I think this should be my current company. In this case, please advise if this should be Company A that I will be start working in March or my family business in Malaysia.
- Question 21 (Present Occupation): should this be Electrical Engineer or Store Manager (Business Owner) for my family business? I actually worked as an Electrical Engineer for over 8 years. I only worked on my family business as a Store manager (Business Owner) for one year. Please advise which one I should put.
- Question 25 (Name and Telephone Numbers of Person in US Who You Will Be Staying With or Visiting for Tourism or Business): I will go back to work at Company A in US, and my brother lives in the same area that I will be working. So, I�ll be staying at my brother�s place. In this case, should this Item be the company A�s address or my brother�s address? Otherwise, should I put �None�?
- Question 29 (Have you ever been in US?):
For How long?: would this be (6 year � 2 months) since I spent 2 month vacation outside US during this past 6 year H1?
Enter Additional Visits to US here: I made 3 trips to Malaysia and 2 trips to Canada during this past 6 years of my H1B. I also made one trip to Canada during my F1 visa. In this case, I�m not sure if this should be the date I returned back to US from my trips to Malaysia and Canada. Should I mention only the trips during my 6 year H1 or mention all the trips, including the period of my F1 Visa?
DS 157
- Question 12 (Not Including Current Employer, List Your Last Two Employers): I worked at company B in US till Jan, 07 and then moved to Company A in US until May, 08 (the end of my 6 year H1). Then, I came back to work on my family business till now. I will go back to work at Company A again in March, 09. I am not sure if my present company is my family business in Malaysia. My future company is Company A that I will start working in March, 09. My two previous companies are Company A that I worked from Jan, 07 to May, 08 and also Company B that I worked before Jan, 07. In this case, should I put Company A (Jan, 07 to May, 08) and Company B (before Jan, 07) as the last two companies? Please advise.
Another issue is that I worked on my family business as a Store Manager (Business Owner) for almost one year. This is not engineering work. Would this cause me any problems for my visa application because I will go back to work with company A as an electrical engineer? Note that I still get work from company A from time to time, but I just did not get pay during this time that I stay in Malaysia. Please advise.
Please help�. I am totally confused and need to use these two forms for the visa interview. Thank you very much.
tattoo Letter E Coloring Page
indyanguy
01-14 12:43 PM
For a long time, I have had this urge to be self employed but personal reasons and the immigration system was a deterrent factor for me in turning this into a reality. Now that I have an EAD, I would like to reexplore this idea and wanted to know if there are any entrepreneurial organizations that I could become a member of that will help me network with like minded people. I have heard of TiE and am getting to know more about this organization. If any of you are members, feedback on how it has helped you will help a lot of people planning to join. Are there any other clubs/orgs that help people like me can bounce ideas off of and help bring together like minded people under the same roof?
Thanks
PS: I had plans of pursuing an MBA for the sole purpose of networking. Unfortunately, this is not something I can do at this point of time.
Thanks
PS: I had plans of pursuing an MBA for the sole purpose of networking. Unfortunately, this is not something I can do at this point of time.
more...
pictures Interactive online coloring
ravi_hyd
10-26 10:53 PM
RD Texas: 3rd Aug
AP - Case pending
FP- Not Received
EAD - Card Prod. ordered
AP - Case pending
FP- Not Received
EAD - Card Prod. ordered
dresses Coloring Capital Letters E
abhishek101
05-28 07:28 PM
It does not matter who you are working for what matters is where you are living. Let's say there is a theft at your home while living in US, will you call Canadian police or US cops?
If the answer is US cops then the answer is very straight forward, you have to play by the rule of the land where you are living,
there is only one exception
If you work in a Embassy then you are on the autonomous land of the respective country, so if you are planning to work for Canadian Embassy then you will not need any US visa.
If the answer is US cops then the answer is very straight forward, you have to play by the rule of the land where you are living,
there is only one exception
If you work in a Embassy then you are on the autonomous land of the respective country, so if you are planning to work for Canadian Embassy then you will not need any US visa.
more...
makeup letter e coloring pages.
saketkapur
12-02 06:58 PM
This in from Ron Gotcher website....I guess they are reading our letters.....
Good news concerning AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received some very good news over the weekend. In October and November, our office was contacted by a number of adjustment of status applicants who had received denials based on "revocations" of their approved I-140 petitions by former employers. All of these applicants had AOS applications that had been pending for more than 180 days before they left their sponsoring employers. They also had approved I-140 petitions. Nonetheless, vindictive employers in each case attempted to revoke the approved I-140 petitions. The CIS accepted these "revocations" and promptly denied the AOS applications. We were contacted by six different individuals with these types of cases and we filed motions to reconsider in their cases.
Earlier, in September, we handled this type of case and the MTR was granted and the denial successfully reversed. This happened before any of these October/November cases came in or were filed.
I was disappointed to see that the CIS was still attempting to deny cases on this basis. There is absolutely no law to support this type of denial and, in fact, such denials are directly contrary to both statutory law and explicit CIS policy.
I was gratified to see that all six of the MTRs we field in October/November were granted and the denials reversed. I am also encouraged that the CIS accepted our request to reopen the denials of the dependents as well, on their own motion, and spare the pricipal applicants the cost of paying filing fees for MTRs for the denials of dependents' AOS applications.
I hope this means that the supervisors at the service centers involved are now aware of the blatant illegality of these types of denials and will put and end to them in the future. We can only hope that we have seen an end to this nonsense.
__________________
Good news concerning AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received some very good news over the weekend. In October and November, our office was contacted by a number of adjustment of status applicants who had received denials based on "revocations" of their approved I-140 petitions by former employers. All of these applicants had AOS applications that had been pending for more than 180 days before they left their sponsoring employers. They also had approved I-140 petitions. Nonetheless, vindictive employers in each case attempted to revoke the approved I-140 petitions. The CIS accepted these "revocations" and promptly denied the AOS applications. We were contacted by six different individuals with these types of cases and we filed motions to reconsider in their cases.
Earlier, in September, we handled this type of case and the MTR was granted and the denial successfully reversed. This happened before any of these October/November cases came in or were filed.
I was disappointed to see that the CIS was still attempting to deny cases on this basis. There is absolutely no law to support this type of denial and, in fact, such denials are directly contrary to both statutory law and explicit CIS policy.
I was gratified to see that all six of the MTRs we field in October/November were granted and the denials reversed. I am also encouraged that the CIS accepted our request to reopen the denials of the dependents as well, on their own motion, and spare the pricipal applicants the cost of paying filing fees for MTRs for the denials of dependents' AOS applications.
I hope this means that the supervisors at the service centers involved are now aware of the blatant illegality of these types of denials and will put and end to them in the future. We can only hope that we have seen an end to this nonsense.
__________________
girlfriend Big and Little E Writing
rahul2699
05-19 11:32 AM
you need to spend 12 months outside of US to apply -- My understanding is that you have to wait 12 months before applying.
hairstyles Letter E coloring pages
Almond
07-16 02:22 PM
NSC is famous for being the slowest of them, sorry to break your heart.
pbojja
10-24 12:22 PM
Hi,
I am in the same situation.
I went to India to get married in sep 2008 and went for stamping for my wife and she got stamped for H4 untill 2011 feb. and we are back on to US. After reaching here I have my GC in my mail.
my PD is may 2006 I am waiting to add my wife to my GC I talked to the lawer and he said once the dates are current we can add her.
lease let me know if we need to do any thing..
Thanks,
There is nothing like adding her to your GC.You have to apply for her 485 when your date is current again ..Nothing you can do till your dates are current again ..I guess you missed opprtunity in Sep 08 .
I am in the same situation.
I went to India to get married in sep 2008 and went for stamping for my wife and she got stamped for H4 untill 2011 feb. and we are back on to US. After reaching here I have my GC in my mail.
my PD is may 2006 I am waiting to add my wife to my GC I talked to the lawer and he said once the dates are current we can add her.
lease let me know if we need to do any thing..
Thanks,
There is nothing like adding her to your GC.You have to apply for her 485 when your date is current again ..Nothing you can do till your dates are current again ..I guess you missed opprtunity in Sep 08 .
nfadlalla
03-09 10:23 AM
Hey Guys
I also recieved "Document OTHER THAN CARD manufactured and mailed" in my mail and I am wondering if anyone with case similar to mine has any answer on this.
I applied "I130 Immigrant Petition For Relative" on Apr. 04.
What could be the message on my case?
Please advise me on what shall I expect?
Thanks in advance
Receipt Number: WACXXXXXXXXXX
Application Type: I130, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR RELATIVE, FIANCE(E), OR ORPHAN
Current Status: Document OTHER THAN CARD manufactured and mailed.
On February 12, 2007, we mailed the document we manufactured based on our earlier approval of this case, and mailed it to the address on we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
what does this mean?...i havnt recieved anything yet....!!!
I also recieved "Document OTHER THAN CARD manufactured and mailed" in my mail and I am wondering if anyone with case similar to mine has any answer on this.
I applied "I130 Immigrant Petition For Relative" on Apr. 04.
What could be the message on my case?
Please advise me on what shall I expect?
Thanks in advance
Receipt Number: WACXXXXXXXXXX
Application Type: I130, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR RELATIVE, FIANCE(E), OR ORPHAN
Current Status: Document OTHER THAN CARD manufactured and mailed.
On February 12, 2007, we mailed the document we manufactured based on our earlier approval of this case, and mailed it to the address on we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
what does this mean?...i havnt recieved anything yet....!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment