sriramkalyan
01-03 01:24 PM
Just contributed $20 ..
Will do monthly all through the year 2007.
Will do monthly all through the year 2007.
wallpaper funny happy birthday
waiting_4_gc
01-18 01:54 PM
Great idea. We are getting another opportunity to meet with our NorCAL IV members.
I am in.
Can someone PM me with more info about this event?
I am in.
Can someone PM me with more info about this event?
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
2011 happy birthday MySpace
abracadabra
01-16 04:44 PM
According to my attorney it is always best to be on H1 if the new employer is willing to do and invoke AC 21
more...
joydiptac
11-18 05:52 PM
Timeline is from Dec 16 2006(Previous H1B expired on this date) to July 18 2007. This is when my H1B extension was pending due to an RFE. USCIS received my 485 application on July 18.
Hi,
Sorry to hear about your case and specially since you haven't broken any law. Technically this should be fairly simple case if you have a receipt of filing the H1B. Every time you file for H1B you get a receipt sent to your employer & a copy for u from USCIS. Then that is what enables you to legally stay (overstay). If you can find that you should not have any problems. If you have copy of the RFE that came for this application even better. Assuming you have neither you should definitely be having the WAC number for the pending H1B application. If you can provide that USCIS can verify that what you are saying is true. I believe the reason why they must've flagged your case is the gap of more than 6 months.
Let's say you do not have any of the above. Call your previous employer and explain to them what soup you are in. They will help you regardless of how bad your relations where when u left the company. All HRs have to keep copy of the H1B, applications, receipts, RFEs & approval (by law). So you should be OK.
All the best,
JC
Hi,
Sorry to hear about your case and specially since you haven't broken any law. Technically this should be fairly simple case if you have a receipt of filing the H1B. Every time you file for H1B you get a receipt sent to your employer & a copy for u from USCIS. Then that is what enables you to legally stay (overstay). If you can find that you should not have any problems. If you have copy of the RFE that came for this application even better. Assuming you have neither you should definitely be having the WAC number for the pending H1B application. If you can provide that USCIS can verify that what you are saying is true. I believe the reason why they must've flagged your case is the gap of more than 6 months.
Let's say you do not have any of the above. Call your previous employer and explain to them what soup you are in. They will help you regardless of how bad your relations where when u left the company. All HRs have to keep copy of the H1B, applications, receipts, RFEs & approval (by law). So you should be OK.
All the best,
JC
purgan
08-06 09:26 AM
Well a lot of people I know have coverted from EB3 to EB2 while retaining their old PDs, so i'mnot sure about EB2 dates staying in 2004.
more...
visafreedom
07-03 11:39 AM
Sure, skip a day of work.. only to come back the next day and have two days worth of work lying on your desk, and one less vacation day...
Dont tell me you never take vacation ;-) If that is true, I will hire you.
Dont tell me you never take vacation ;-) If that is true, I will hire you.
2010 happy birthday cartoon
willIWill
07-16 01:01 PM
Thanks for the suggestions Rockstart.
Lease papers & Insurance sounds like a good idea along with joint tax return. They ask for a lot of things as supporting documents, but provide an itty.. bitty.. envelope to mail the same along with the RFE letter.
One thing that concerns me is that these documents support the marital status but I do not know why they say as stated in the instructions for I-485. This throws me off track, because for I-485 spouse we have to send another whole list of documents, such as finance docs, affidavit of support etc. I can send them as well, but I don't want the USCIS officer reviewing the RFE response to miscontrue it as I'm almost applying for a derivative I-485 for my spouse when my PD is not current.
Lease papers & Insurance sounds like a good idea along with joint tax return. They ask for a lot of things as supporting documents, but provide an itty.. bitty.. envelope to mail the same along with the RFE letter.
One thing that concerns me is that these documents support the marital status but I do not know why they say as stated in the instructions for I-485. This throws me off track, because for I-485 spouse we have to send another whole list of documents, such as finance docs, affidavit of support etc. I can send them as well, but I don't want the USCIS officer reviewing the RFE response to miscontrue it as I'm almost applying for a derivative I-485 for my spouse when my PD is not current.
more...
desi3933
06-25 10:38 AM
Here is the reply from my attorney
the CIS takes 90 days to issue the EAD cards; don’t panic as you and your wife are in valid status and not in violation of any rules because you have timely filed your applications for adjustment of status and your status (H1B and H4) are still current
Read the bold part again. The condition that maintaining H4 status is not correct. Your spouse is running a business and using EAD and therefore, she is not in H4 status. This is the key difference.
One can't be in valid employment unless has valid EAD (or H-1B status). Unlike H-1B, filing an extension for EAD does not confer right to continue employment authorization while it is pending and current authorization is expired.
________________
Not a legal advice.
the CIS takes 90 days to issue the EAD cards; don’t panic as you and your wife are in valid status and not in violation of any rules because you have timely filed your applications for adjustment of status and your status (H1B and H4) are still current
Read the bold part again. The condition that maintaining H4 status is not correct. Your spouse is running a business and using EAD and therefore, she is not in H4 status. This is the key difference.
One can't be in valid employment unless has valid EAD (or H-1B status). Unlike H-1B, filing an extension for EAD does not confer right to continue employment authorization while it is pending and current authorization is expired.
________________
Not a legal advice.
hair Happy Birthday!
dish
09-26 06:00 PM
Instead of asking for "filing for I-485 even when Priority date is not current" ,
why not we ask for "filing for EAD and Advance Parole based on an approved I-140.".
The net effect is the same. By the present law EAD and Advance parole is issued based on a pending I-485. Instead , EAD and Parole could be issued based on on an Approved Immigrant petition - ie I-140.
Even if we are allowed to file for I-485 when priority dates are not current, the application for adjustment of status will not be considered without being a visa date available.
why not we ask for "filing for EAD and Advance Parole based on an approved I-140.".
The net effect is the same. By the present law EAD and Advance parole is issued based on a pending I-485. Instead , EAD and Parole could be issued based on on an Approved Immigrant petition - ie I-140.
Even if we are allowed to file for I-485 when priority dates are not current, the application for adjustment of status will not be considered without being a visa date available.
more...
kandhu
01-02 02:27 PM
Hi Everybody,
I know that nobody has an answer for my question, but still i would like to get the views/inputs from the seniors here , who have experience with USCIS.
When do you think a person with PD of Nov 2007 ,EB3 from India, would be able to file for 485??
Welcome to the GC journey!
My GUESS is atleast 5 to 8 years with the current laws.
(I may be too optimisic. It may be even 10+ years !)
I know one of the things that IV is figting for is to apply for I485 even when the dates are not current. (This is just one of the many things that IV is fighting for. Review the below thread for detailed info)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16298&highlight=year
So please continue to Support & Contribute to IV.
Hope you have a less wait time.
I know that nobody has an answer for my question, but still i would like to get the views/inputs from the seniors here , who have experience with USCIS.
When do you think a person with PD of Nov 2007 ,EB3 from India, would be able to file for 485??
Welcome to the GC journey!
My GUESS is atleast 5 to 8 years with the current laws.
(I may be too optimisic. It may be even 10+ years !)
I know one of the things that IV is figting for is to apply for I485 even when the dates are not current. (This is just one of the many things that IV is fighting for. Review the below thread for detailed info)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16298&highlight=year
So please continue to Support & Contribute to IV.
Hope you have a less wait time.
hot funny happy birthday songs.
Rb_newsletter
04-15 05:20 PM
The person I know who got GC before the PD was current, debated for sometime asked his lawyer etc... but it was whoever's mistake, they have got to honor it... he decided to keep the GC act dumb and njoy life.:D.. by the way even if you get a GC when PD is current they reserve the right to revoke... check with lawyer and decide for yourself !!!
Does anyone know which law states that GC should not be approved when PD is not current? I guess the whole 'PD' concept was invented by administration people.
Does anyone know which law states that GC should not be approved when PD is not current? I guess the whole 'PD' concept was invented by administration people.
more...
house happy birthday funny pictures.
centaur
07-28 04:18 PM
:)
One more expert...:D
One more expert...:D
tattoo Happy Birthday Pollock
peer123
04-03 07:20 PM
Thanks for your inputs,... I welcome others thoughts and experience on this topic
more...
pictures funny birthday messages
saketkapur
10-11 01:00 PM
I would suggest you talk to a good immigration attorney or post your query in "Ask the Lawyer Section".
Just some clarification....so you still have a valid H1B until 2012, I would suggest that you should apply for EAD/AP asap and start using the same rather than just depend on H1B...if that is possible.....
PS:I am not an attorney so this suggestion should not be considered legal advice...every case is different.......talk to an immigration attorney
Just some clarification....so you still have a valid H1B until 2012, I would suggest that you should apply for EAD/AP asap and start using the same rather than just depend on H1B...if that is possible.....
PS:I am not an attorney so this suggestion should not be considered legal advice...every case is different.......talk to an immigration attorney
dresses Funny Happy Birthday Cartoon
satishku_2000
08-23 10:01 PM
Response times are now determined by service centers. Earlier it used be be 12 weeks but now it depends on evidence type
Memo accoring to murthy.com
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_restim.html
USCIS Clarification on Response Time for RFEs/NOIDs
Posted Jun 22, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS is implementing changes with respect to the deadlines for responses to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs). MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers were informed of the final rule on flexible response times for RFEs in our May 4, 2007 article, USCIS Regulation on Response Time for RFEs and NOIDs.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS now has issued further clarification regarding timeframes for RFE and NOID responses in its June 1, 2007 interoffice memorandum. This guidance was issued to the appropriate USCIS directors in order to clarify procedures that became effective on June 18, 2007. This guidance is intended to establish the proper RFE and NOID deadlines, now that we will no longer be operating under the earlier, standard 12-week response time for an RFE and 30-day response time for a NOID.
�MurthyDotCom
TYPES OF FILINGS FOR RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS
�MurthyDotCom
Missing or Incomplete Initial Evidence
�MurthyDotCom
According to the USCIS's June 1, 2007 guidance, applicants and petitioners can be given 30 days to submit missing initial evidence that the form requires, regardless of the nature of the form. Initial evidence is essentially basic, required documentation that is fundamentally necessary in each case.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS can deny a case outright for a lack of initial evidence. The issuance of an RFE is purely discretionary on the part of the USCIS, when, in their opinion, the initial evidence was not provided with the filing.
�MurthyDotCom
I-539 Requests to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS also established a 30-day response time to any RFE issued with regard to Form I-539 (Request to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status). The Memo explained that the USCIS determined lengthy RFE response times to be inconsistent with the purpose of Form I-539. Therefore, RFEs related to Form I-539 filings will have 30 days to respond.
�MurthyDotCom
OTHER TYPES OF RFE RESPONSES
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence Available within the U.S. : 42 Days
�MurthyDotCom
If the USCIS believes that the missing evidence is available within the U.S., the RFE response typically will be 42 days. This applies to all forms, other than the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence to be Obtained from Abroad
�MurthyDotCom
If missing evidence is available only from outside the U.S., then the USCIS typically will provide applicants and/or petitioners with up to a total of 84 days to respond to the RFE. This also applies to all forms, with the exception of the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
CONCLUSION
�MurthyDotCom
It is now more important than ever to make every effort to completely document a case before filing. The importance of providing all of the initial required evidence is going to become even more important now than before. Failure to respond to an RFE, with all the required evidence and in a timely fashion, will likely result in a denial. It is important to take the time to file correctly, rather than rush. At the Murthy Law Firm, we believe that it is always better to obtain a slow approval than a quick denial!
Memo accoring to murthy.com
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_restim.html
USCIS Clarification on Response Time for RFEs/NOIDs
Posted Jun 22, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS is implementing changes with respect to the deadlines for responses to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs). MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers were informed of the final rule on flexible response times for RFEs in our May 4, 2007 article, USCIS Regulation on Response Time for RFEs and NOIDs.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS now has issued further clarification regarding timeframes for RFE and NOID responses in its June 1, 2007 interoffice memorandum. This guidance was issued to the appropriate USCIS directors in order to clarify procedures that became effective on June 18, 2007. This guidance is intended to establish the proper RFE and NOID deadlines, now that we will no longer be operating under the earlier, standard 12-week response time for an RFE and 30-day response time for a NOID.
�MurthyDotCom
TYPES OF FILINGS FOR RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS
�MurthyDotCom
Missing or Incomplete Initial Evidence
�MurthyDotCom
According to the USCIS's June 1, 2007 guidance, applicants and petitioners can be given 30 days to submit missing initial evidence that the form requires, regardless of the nature of the form. Initial evidence is essentially basic, required documentation that is fundamentally necessary in each case.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS can deny a case outright for a lack of initial evidence. The issuance of an RFE is purely discretionary on the part of the USCIS, when, in their opinion, the initial evidence was not provided with the filing.
�MurthyDotCom
I-539 Requests to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS also established a 30-day response time to any RFE issued with regard to Form I-539 (Request to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status). The Memo explained that the USCIS determined lengthy RFE response times to be inconsistent with the purpose of Form I-539. Therefore, RFEs related to Form I-539 filings will have 30 days to respond.
�MurthyDotCom
OTHER TYPES OF RFE RESPONSES
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence Available within the U.S. : 42 Days
�MurthyDotCom
If the USCIS believes that the missing evidence is available within the U.S., the RFE response typically will be 42 days. This applies to all forms, other than the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence to be Obtained from Abroad
�MurthyDotCom
If missing evidence is available only from outside the U.S., then the USCIS typically will provide applicants and/or petitioners with up to a total of 84 days to respond to the RFE. This also applies to all forms, with the exception of the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
CONCLUSION
�MurthyDotCom
It is now more important than ever to make every effort to completely document a case before filing. The importance of providing all of the initial required evidence is going to become even more important now than before. Failure to respond to an RFE, with all the required evidence and in a timely fashion, will likely result in a denial. It is important to take the time to file correctly, rather than rush. At the Murthy Law Firm, we believe that it is always better to obtain a slow approval than a quick denial!
more...
makeup funny happy birthday pictures.
MYGC2008
01-20 08:30 PM
I renewed my Passport at NY. and they are accepting valid EAD. It is not true.
But Initially they gave for 1 year when I renewed on July 1st week 2008.
Later on 2nd Junary 2009 I went and they gave me full 10 year.
I am on EAD abd travelled using AP. I even did not show my H1B I797. The Stamping on Old passport was expired way back in 2007.
Let me know if u need more info.
Also I met lot of people and they were given 10 years (may be 1year first and later renew for 9 more)
Hi friends,
My brother in NJ got his new passport at NY Indian consulate (since old one was expiring soon). They gave new passport which was valid for only one year - saying that they need valid unexpired visa-stamp to give 10 year validity passport.
They said that they will NOT accept
- valid unexpired EAD
- valid unexpired AP
- valid 485 receipt
- even valid unexpired H1 approval notice (my brother still has H1 in addition to AP)
...Now it is so absurd that, even if my bro went for visa stamping (which he isn't planning), he will not probably be issued 3 yr visa as passport is valid for very short duration. A chicken and egg problem.
In addition why do Indian consulate worry about our visa status for determining passport validity duration ? If they do care then at least they must accept the legal documents (ead/ap/485 receipt/h1 approval notice) to make a decision.
I will appreciate if anyone has a solution to this problem. All answers appreciated.
I am so sad (and mad) that lawmakers of our country are still haunting us while we are away from our country and trying to contribute to its progress.
But Initially they gave for 1 year when I renewed on July 1st week 2008.
Later on 2nd Junary 2009 I went and they gave me full 10 year.
I am on EAD abd travelled using AP. I even did not show my H1B I797. The Stamping on Old passport was expired way back in 2007.
Let me know if u need more info.
Also I met lot of people and they were given 10 years (may be 1year first and later renew for 9 more)
Hi friends,
My brother in NJ got his new passport at NY Indian consulate (since old one was expiring soon). They gave new passport which was valid for only one year - saying that they need valid unexpired visa-stamp to give 10 year validity passport.
They said that they will NOT accept
- valid unexpired EAD
- valid unexpired AP
- valid 485 receipt
- even valid unexpired H1 approval notice (my brother still has H1 in addition to AP)
...Now it is so absurd that, even if my bro went for visa stamping (which he isn't planning), he will not probably be issued 3 yr visa as passport is valid for very short duration. A chicken and egg problem.
In addition why do Indian consulate worry about our visa status for determining passport validity duration ? If they do care then at least they must accept the legal documents (ead/ap/485 receipt/h1 approval notice) to make a decision.
I will appreciate if anyone has a solution to this problem. All answers appreciated.
I am so sad (and mad) that lawmakers of our country are still haunting us while we are away from our country and trying to contribute to its progress.
girlfriend funny happy birthday wishes
JunRN
08-21 11:38 AM
Once they're through with July 2 or 3 filers, July 17th filers onwards will be next because there are just a handful who filed on July 4 to July 16. This news makes sense to me.
It seems Texas is moving fast now and so is Nebraska. We can see a big leap in the Receipting Up-date this coming Friday. Whew...mine is 2 receipting up-date away and got no privilege to see if checks got encashed because atty. paid the fees.
It seems Texas is moving fast now and so is Nebraska. We can see a big leap in the Receipting Up-date this coming Friday. Whew...mine is 2 receipting up-date away and got no privilege to see if checks got encashed because atty. paid the fees.
hairstyles happy birthday funny pictures.
indyanguy
12-19 06:13 PM
Husband + Wife - 1 Application
Wife - Seperate Appln. ( Will do follow to join incase by chance the first one gets stuck
Can you explain how "follow to join" works? Thanks
Wife - Seperate Appln. ( Will do follow to join incase by chance the first one gets stuck
Can you explain how "follow to join" works? Thanks
eilsoe
10-03 01:15 PM
:::snicker:::
SPAM*INFINTY+1!!!!!
::::runs like h*ll::::
:::::evil laughter scares peasants:::::
SPAM*INFINTY+1!!!!!
::::runs like h*ll::::
:::::evil laughter scares peasants:::::
GCard_Dream
09-15 04:31 PM
I am not sure if this is entirely true. Yes we can't vote but folks who are pro-immigrant can and they will decide if legal immigration is good for this country or not. Trust me, if everyone was against legal immigration in this country then none of us would be here in the first place. Everyone knows that there is a shortage of labor and migrants are needed to fill the jobs.
Why do you think most of the minorities vote for democrats? One of the reason, amongst various others, is that people think of democrats as pro-immigration party. In fact that's one of the reason I like dems.
Because of this 9/11 case, everyone is kind of worried about the security and it makes sense. Americans want to get a handle on who is coming in and who is going out and I can't and won't argue against that. Everyone wants to live without the fear of terrorism and that's understandable.
To make long story short, there are plenty of people who will vote based on what the candidate's standing is on the immigration. In fact, that's precisely the reason house didn't bring up the immi bill this year because they didn't want to have their candidates vote one way or the other on the immigration issue and have to explain that to voters in couple of months.
Everybody knows about legals and illegals. Will it gain any grounds for them to get big vote this november is important. The SKIL bill or any legal provisions in the CIR will not fetch even a single vote for them. In fact it MAY reduce the vote from anti immigrant groups if they add anything for legals.
Why do you think most of the minorities vote for democrats? One of the reason, amongst various others, is that people think of democrats as pro-immigration party. In fact that's one of the reason I like dems.
Because of this 9/11 case, everyone is kind of worried about the security and it makes sense. Americans want to get a handle on who is coming in and who is going out and I can't and won't argue against that. Everyone wants to live without the fear of terrorism and that's understandable.
To make long story short, there are plenty of people who will vote based on what the candidate's standing is on the immigration. In fact, that's precisely the reason house didn't bring up the immi bill this year because they didn't want to have their candidates vote one way or the other on the immigration issue and have to explain that to voters in couple of months.
Everybody knows about legals and illegals. Will it gain any grounds for them to get big vote this november is important. The SKIL bill or any legal provisions in the CIR will not fetch even a single vote for them. In fact it MAY reduce the vote from anti immigrant groups if they add anything for legals.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento