ashkam
12-03 04:12 PM
Does anyone knows if Person eligible for AC21 porting is eligible for unemployment benefit?
Refer to this post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=234403&postcount=24) for a good answer.
Refer to this post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=234403&postcount=24) for a good answer.
wallpaper megan fox makeup and hair.
Raksha
12-11 06:26 PM
Hi,
If married in India & want to take divorce in USA what is the procedure & will it be a valid divorce?
If married in India & want to take divorce in USA what is the procedure & will it be a valid divorce?
stxvr
07-20 03:44 AM
From the website http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html we can see that there are only 140000 GCs are given for employment. Also as per the current prediction on the same page shows that there will be 750000 new applications will be added in to system because of this recent events. Now follwing are some facts what I can see from these details:
1. As only 140000 visas can be givens per year. USCIS OR DOS can not cross this limit.
2. There is also per country limit. (I don't know what is the exact % for per country - think 10 -20 %)
3. If you count 20 % then for India the figure per year is 28000.
4 Now imagine how many years it will take to cover up the number like 750000.
My analysis:
-Based on these details you can predict that there is going to be more than 10 years to clear this thing. (except some new law passes).
- Some may get GC after 10 years of filing A485.
- For atleast 10 years PD remains Unavailable.
What do you say on this?
1. As only 140000 visas can be givens per year. USCIS OR DOS can not cross this limit.
2. There is also per country limit. (I don't know what is the exact % for per country - think 10 -20 %)
3. If you count 20 % then for India the figure per year is 28000.
4 Now imagine how many years it will take to cover up the number like 750000.
My analysis:
-Based on these details you can predict that there is going to be more than 10 years to clear this thing. (except some new law passes).
- Some may get GC after 10 years of filing A485.
- For atleast 10 years PD remains Unavailable.
What do you say on this?
2011 Want to try on Megan Fox#39;s
Googler
07-20 12:53 AM
But this won't be easy "Do you want us to compromise on national security", will be the first question asked . They will acknowledge the applicants pain and won't budge . "We know thousands like you are getting screwed for many years, but national security is foremost'.
Man, these forums are getting chaotic -- we need a reorganization so that duplicative threads are avoided. Namecheck probably needs its own subforum.
I didn't want to re-post what I said in the name check sticky thread, so here is a link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=126248&postcount=351.
As for the argument that the name check process enhances national security that is not really true.
(a) how is national security enhanced by having someone sit around renewing their EAD hanging out in the country year after year -- they should really be hurrying if they are so worried about the risk we pose.
(b) there is considerable internal debate about the usefulness of the "reference file" part of the check; the part that causes these huge delays. Read the name check section of the Ombudsmans 2007 report.
(c) if national security is being preserved by this process why isn't it fully funded through appropriations?? Surely catching a terrorist is worth more than the $2 per application that USCIS pays FBI.
(d) if national security is being preserved by this process, then why is FBI complaining (see recent press reports) that only 30 analysts are available for this reference file part of the analysis?
(e) Sec. Chertoff is always yammering on about "risk based" national security policy -- the FBI namecheck process is the opposite of risk based policy. See Ombudsman's 2007 report again.
Also note that 8 USC 1571 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001571----000-.html) states very clearly that "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application". Congress did not intend that the process should stretch on for years upon years. 8 USC 1571 was not stricken after the new name check guidelines were put into place.
These are all points that we have to hammer on -- to the press, to congress to absolutely everyone who says hi to us.
This should be a campaign as large as the one for the visa bulletin fiasco because the effect of the FBI Name Check is as devastating if not more devastating than the visa bulletin fiasco.
All these years we had no choice but to believe the BS that was trotted out by FBI (google Cannon, Garrity testimony) about how most records were done by the time you made your morning coffee, what are you thowing a tantrum about my lovely etc. I really sat up when I read the 2007 Ombudsmans report which finally provided data to support what so many people had been complaining about for years. Now no one can deny that the scale of the problem is unpardonably large.
Man, these forums are getting chaotic -- we need a reorganization so that duplicative threads are avoided. Namecheck probably needs its own subforum.
I didn't want to re-post what I said in the name check sticky thread, so here is a link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=126248&postcount=351.
As for the argument that the name check process enhances national security that is not really true.
(a) how is national security enhanced by having someone sit around renewing their EAD hanging out in the country year after year -- they should really be hurrying if they are so worried about the risk we pose.
(b) there is considerable internal debate about the usefulness of the "reference file" part of the check; the part that causes these huge delays. Read the name check section of the Ombudsmans 2007 report.
(c) if national security is being preserved by this process why isn't it fully funded through appropriations?? Surely catching a terrorist is worth more than the $2 per application that USCIS pays FBI.
(d) if national security is being preserved by this process, then why is FBI complaining (see recent press reports) that only 30 analysts are available for this reference file part of the analysis?
(e) Sec. Chertoff is always yammering on about "risk based" national security policy -- the FBI namecheck process is the opposite of risk based policy. See Ombudsman's 2007 report again.
Also note that 8 USC 1571 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001571----000-.html) states very clearly that "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application". Congress did not intend that the process should stretch on for years upon years. 8 USC 1571 was not stricken after the new name check guidelines were put into place.
These are all points that we have to hammer on -- to the press, to congress to absolutely everyone who says hi to us.
This should be a campaign as large as the one for the visa bulletin fiasco because the effect of the FBI Name Check is as devastating if not more devastating than the visa bulletin fiasco.
All these years we had no choice but to believe the BS that was trotted out by FBI (google Cannon, Garrity testimony) about how most records were done by the time you made your morning coffee, what are you thowing a tantrum about my lovely etc. I really sat up when I read the 2007 Ombudsmans report which finally provided data to support what so many people had been complaining about for years. Now no one can deny that the scale of the problem is unpardonably large.
more...
MerciesOfInjustices
03-25 09:09 AM
TOI is the champion of these kind of nonsense, after S.1932 was passed by the senate they published an article saying 'Good news, A bill for Green card increase, H1B increase ..... have been passed by U.S. lawmakers' with no mention of house hurdle etc. I fail to digest that the reporter who is writing the article doesn't know, after the bills get passed in the Senate they go to Congress. But it's TOI they can do that.
Write to TOI, the article is from a news agency but they should be talking about legal immigration issues more.
Write to TOI, the article is from a news agency but they should be talking about legal immigration issues more.
logiclife
03-24 03:00 PM
Assuming that those numbers are wrong, you think they will listen to our request and correct it? No way.
more...
gk_2000
08-27 06:22 PM
good one ghost.
it's disappointing that the sept vb movement was much smaller than expected (i fall in your g3m2 category) but the blessing in disguise is that it will make people believe the long term vision that IV has to pursue the fixes that will solve these problems for good and will help everyone irrespective of their category. hopefully more people will come forward and donate and join IV's hands on the grass root efforts.
Sept VB movement was small???? Didn't you notice EB3 Row moved 6 months, and EB4 ROW by about 1 year?
And NO movement for EB3-I.
Now, how unfair is that. EB2, EB4, everyone moves faster, but not EB3 (I)!!! :mad:
it's disappointing that the sept vb movement was much smaller than expected (i fall in your g3m2 category) but the blessing in disguise is that it will make people believe the long term vision that IV has to pursue the fixes that will solve these problems for good and will help everyone irrespective of their category. hopefully more people will come forward and donate and join IV's hands on the grass root efforts.
Sept VB movement was small???? Didn't you notice EB3 Row moved 6 months, and EB4 ROW by about 1 year?
And NO movement for EB3-I.
Now, how unfair is that. EB2, EB4, everyone moves faster, but not EB3 (I)!!! :mad:
2010 megan fox makeup ideas. megan
GCBy3000
02-07 09:54 AM
You are not married to your job if you are in H1. This is my whole point to be in H1. I MAY BE WRONG.
If you are in H1 and having a PD of xxx date and if you decide to switch to another company by transferring your H1 into different position, you can still carry your PD with you for the new position eventhough it is totally different position. This is my understanding. If this is true, you can go up the ladder ifyou are in h1. If you invoke EAD and use 485, you cannot do this.
Only other way to do this when you are in EAD is to switch back to H1. Again, you should have left some time in your original 6 years of H1 to do this.
It is purely upto you to decide what do u want. If u r planning to stick with the same company that has your H1B, then no need to pursue EAD option. But if you are planning to get out of your current company and pursue different opportunity, then you can use ur EAD.
No matter what the status(H1B or EAD) you are in, you need to be employed in the same position or a similar position as in your Labor Certification. If your Labor Certification says you are a Programmer you cant be a Project Mgr in EAD. Till you get your GC, you are compulsorily married to your profession and title.
If you are in H1 and having a PD of xxx date and if you decide to switch to another company by transferring your H1 into different position, you can still carry your PD with you for the new position eventhough it is totally different position. This is my understanding. If this is true, you can go up the ladder ifyou are in h1. If you invoke EAD and use 485, you cannot do this.
Only other way to do this when you are in EAD is to switch back to H1. Again, you should have left some time in your original 6 years of H1 to do this.
It is purely upto you to decide what do u want. If u r planning to stick with the same company that has your H1B, then no need to pursue EAD option. But if you are planning to get out of your current company and pursue different opportunity, then you can use ur EAD.
No matter what the status(H1B or EAD) you are in, you need to be employed in the same position or a similar position as in your Labor Certification. If your Labor Certification says you are a Programmer you cant be a Project Mgr in EAD. Till you get your GC, you are compulsorily married to your profession and title.
more...
dupedinjuly
07-15 02:07 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/us/politics/15immig.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
A Little-Known Group Claims a Victory on Immigration
July 15, 2007
A Little-Known Group Claims a Victory on Immigration
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, July 14 � When a comprehensive immigration bill collapsed last month on the Senate floor, it was a victory for a small group that had been lobbying Congress for a decade to reduce the number of immigrants � legal and illegal � in the United States.
The group, Numbers USA, tracked every twist and turn of the bill. Its members flooded the Senate with more than a million faxes, sent through the organization�s Web site. It supplied arguments and information to senators opposing the bill.
�It was a David-and-Goliath struggle,� said Roy H. Beck, the president of Numbers USA, who had been preparing for this moment since 1996, when he wrote a book titled �The Case Against Immigration.�
Supporters of the bill included President Bush, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the high-tech industry, the Roman Catholic Church, many Hispanic organizations, farmers, restaurants, hotels and the construction industry.
�The bill had support from the opinion elite in this country,� Mr. Beck said. �But we built a grass-roots army, consumed with passion for a cause, and used the power of the Internet to go around the elites and defeat a disastrous amnesty bill.�
The measure, which died on June 28, would have offered legal status and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants and created a new temporary worker program while increasing border security.
�Numbers USA initiated and turbocharged the populist revolt against the immigration reform package,� said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group. �Roy Beck takes people who are upset about illegal immigration for different reasons, including hostility to Latino immigrants, and disciplines them so their message is based on policy rather than race-based arguments or xenophobia.�
Representative Brian P. Bilbray, Republican of California and chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, said, �We�re involved in weekly discussions with Numbers USA and other immigration-control groups as part of a team effort.�
Numbers USA had fewer than 50,000 members at the end of 2004, but now counts more than 447,000, with an increase of 83 percent since January alone.
Turning to the next phase of the debate, those members will push for enforcement of existing laws and new measures to curb the employment of illegal immigrants.
�Our No. 1 legislative goal is to begin a system of mandatory workplace verification, to confirm that every employee is a United States citizen or an alien authorized to work in this country,� said Rosemary E. Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA.
The organization wants to reduce immigration � as Mr. Beck says in the subtitle of his book � for �moral, economic, social and environmental reasons.�
He contends that immigrants and their children are driving population growth, which he says is gobbling up open space, causing urban sprawl and creating more traffic congestion.
Moreover, Mr. Beck asserts that immigrants and temporary workers, by increasing the supply of labor, have depressed wages in industries from meatpacking to information technology. Numbers USA has worked most closely with conservative Republicans, but in recent weeks has built alliances with Democrats who share the concern.
Numbers USA keeps a scorecard showing every vote by every member of Congress on immigration-related issues since 1989. The group assigns a letter grade to each member.
Lawmakers who received an A-plus were all Republicans and included Representatives J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a presidential candidate. The lowest grades � F-minuses � went to Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Joe Baca of California, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Numbers USA objects to proposals that increase the number of legal or illegal immigrants. It steers clear of debates over the allocation of visas.
�It does not matter to us whether a visa goes to a high-tech worker, a farm worker or the sibling of a U.S. citizen,� Mr. Beck said.
Numbers USA is one of many organizations fostered by John H. Tanton, an ophthalmologist from Michigan who has also championed efforts to protect the environment, limit population growth and promote English as an official language.
Critics like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Representative Chris Cannon, Republican of Utah, have described Dr. Tanton as a father of the anti-immigration movement. Mark A. Potok, a senior researcher at the law center, called Numbers USA the �kinder, gentler side of that movement.�
Mr. Beck said Numbers USA had been independent of Dr. Tanton since 2002. On the group�s Web site, Mr. Beck cautions against �immigrant bashing� and says, �Even illegal aliens deserve humane treatment as they are detected, detained and deported.�
In the fight over the Senate bill, Numbers USA had daily conference calls with conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Eagle Forum.
For tax purposes, Numbers USA has two arms, an educational foundation and an advocacy group that lobbies Congress. Together, Mr. Beck said, they have a budget of $3 million this year, but will probably raise and spend $4.5 million.
Mr. Beck said that in the past the group received about two-thirds of its money from foundations like the Colcom Foundation of Pittsburgh and the Weeden Foundation in New York. Many of these foundations have an interest in conservation.
Numbers USA has raised the rest of its money from individual contributors over the Internet. The group collects detailed information on its members � their ethnic background, politics, religious affiliations, occupations and concerns � so it can choose the most effective advocates on any particular issue.
In a survey question on religion, the group said the information would be useful because many lawmakers were likely to respond better to people with �a very similar religious worldview.�
�This is our citizen army,� Mr. Beck said, pointing to a map that showed members of his group in every Congressional district.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
A Little-Known Group Claims a Victory on Immigration
July 15, 2007
A Little-Known Group Claims a Victory on Immigration
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, July 14 � When a comprehensive immigration bill collapsed last month on the Senate floor, it was a victory for a small group that had been lobbying Congress for a decade to reduce the number of immigrants � legal and illegal � in the United States.
The group, Numbers USA, tracked every twist and turn of the bill. Its members flooded the Senate with more than a million faxes, sent through the organization�s Web site. It supplied arguments and information to senators opposing the bill.
�It was a David-and-Goliath struggle,� said Roy H. Beck, the president of Numbers USA, who had been preparing for this moment since 1996, when he wrote a book titled �The Case Against Immigration.�
Supporters of the bill included President Bush, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the high-tech industry, the Roman Catholic Church, many Hispanic organizations, farmers, restaurants, hotels and the construction industry.
�The bill had support from the opinion elite in this country,� Mr. Beck said. �But we built a grass-roots army, consumed with passion for a cause, and used the power of the Internet to go around the elites and defeat a disastrous amnesty bill.�
The measure, which died on June 28, would have offered legal status and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants and created a new temporary worker program while increasing border security.
�Numbers USA initiated and turbocharged the populist revolt against the immigration reform package,� said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group. �Roy Beck takes people who are upset about illegal immigration for different reasons, including hostility to Latino immigrants, and disciplines them so their message is based on policy rather than race-based arguments or xenophobia.�
Representative Brian P. Bilbray, Republican of California and chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, said, �We�re involved in weekly discussions with Numbers USA and other immigration-control groups as part of a team effort.�
Numbers USA had fewer than 50,000 members at the end of 2004, but now counts more than 447,000, with an increase of 83 percent since January alone.
Turning to the next phase of the debate, those members will push for enforcement of existing laws and new measures to curb the employment of illegal immigrants.
�Our No. 1 legislative goal is to begin a system of mandatory workplace verification, to confirm that every employee is a United States citizen or an alien authorized to work in this country,� said Rosemary E. Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA.
The organization wants to reduce immigration � as Mr. Beck says in the subtitle of his book � for �moral, economic, social and environmental reasons.�
He contends that immigrants and their children are driving population growth, which he says is gobbling up open space, causing urban sprawl and creating more traffic congestion.
Moreover, Mr. Beck asserts that immigrants and temporary workers, by increasing the supply of labor, have depressed wages in industries from meatpacking to information technology. Numbers USA has worked most closely with conservative Republicans, but in recent weeks has built alliances with Democrats who share the concern.
Numbers USA keeps a scorecard showing every vote by every member of Congress on immigration-related issues since 1989. The group assigns a letter grade to each member.
Lawmakers who received an A-plus were all Republicans and included Representatives J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a presidential candidate. The lowest grades � F-minuses � went to Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Joe Baca of California, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Numbers USA objects to proposals that increase the number of legal or illegal immigrants. It steers clear of debates over the allocation of visas.
�It does not matter to us whether a visa goes to a high-tech worker, a farm worker or the sibling of a U.S. citizen,� Mr. Beck said.
Numbers USA is one of many organizations fostered by John H. Tanton, an ophthalmologist from Michigan who has also championed efforts to protect the environment, limit population growth and promote English as an official language.
Critics like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Representative Chris Cannon, Republican of Utah, have described Dr. Tanton as a father of the anti-immigration movement. Mark A. Potok, a senior researcher at the law center, called Numbers USA the �kinder, gentler side of that movement.�
Mr. Beck said Numbers USA had been independent of Dr. Tanton since 2002. On the group�s Web site, Mr. Beck cautions against �immigrant bashing� and says, �Even illegal aliens deserve humane treatment as they are detected, detained and deported.�
In the fight over the Senate bill, Numbers USA had daily conference calls with conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Eagle Forum.
For tax purposes, Numbers USA has two arms, an educational foundation and an advocacy group that lobbies Congress. Together, Mr. Beck said, they have a budget of $3 million this year, but will probably raise and spend $4.5 million.
Mr. Beck said that in the past the group received about two-thirds of its money from foundations like the Colcom Foundation of Pittsburgh and the Weeden Foundation in New York. Many of these foundations have an interest in conservation.
Numbers USA has raised the rest of its money from individual contributors over the Internet. The group collects detailed information on its members � their ethnic background, politics, religious affiliations, occupations and concerns � so it can choose the most effective advocates on any particular issue.
In a survey question on religion, the group said the information would be useful because many lawmakers were likely to respond better to people with �a very similar religious worldview.�
�This is our citizen army,� Mr. Beck said, pointing to a map that showed members of his group in every Congressional district.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
hair megan fox makeup and hair.
thamizhan
07-17 10:32 PM
http://www..com/
more...
Maverick1
08-13 11:25 AM
If you were born in the USA, there is no way to reject US Citizenship. Even after you take up Indian passport and citizenship, you can come anytime to the USA flash your birth certificate and then get a US Passport.
Did you mean , "you can't loose the citizenship for ever , and get it back if you want to" ? One can renounce the citizenship (of USA) if they wish to.
Did you mean , "you can't loose the citizenship for ever , and get it back if you want to" ? One can renounce the citizenship (of USA) if they wish to.
hot Megan Fox Hair Makeup
xela
04-23 05:59 PM
June 31?
lol Thanks,....yeah the impossible day....no it was the 30th, my bad
lol Thanks,....yeah the impossible day....no it was the 30th, my bad
more...
house megan fox makeup free. megan
morchu
05-04 12:37 PM
AR11 is legal requirement. And that is the first step.
But apparently USCIS system doesnt update your address on pending applications, with a seach by Name. So in the second step, you need to provide the application receipt numbers and update your address on them.
What is the second step you are referring to? I thought only an online AR-11 is good enough.
I will be changing my address next month (same zip code and state).
But apparently USCIS system doesnt update your address on pending applications, with a seach by Name. So in the second step, you need to provide the application receipt numbers and update your address on them.
What is the second step you are referring to? I thought only an online AR-11 is good enough.
I will be changing my address next month (same zip code and state).
tattoo Megan Fox name the Sexiest
braindrain
09-03 01:25 PM
Any help??
more...
pictures Megan Fox is the new
Green.Tech
04-17 12:19 PM
My wife (going to use AP), My little son (US citizen) & my mother-in-law (Visitor Visa) are coming back to Dallas from India on Monday. My mother-in-law left USA in November 2008 and coming back again now. Would it be safe to send all three of them to the same counter at the POE? or would it be safe to send them to 2 separate counters.
My worry is that if they go together, the officer may think that my mother-in-law is here again for baby sitting or something like that since her leaving USA is less than 6 months. I know that there is no such requirement that a person has to be outside US for a certain period of time before entering again, but I am still wondering would it cause any problems. On the flip side if they go to different counters they may let her in without any issues, since my mother-in-law doesn't know English (I am planning to give a letter for the purpose of her trip), Please suggest?
kriskris,
IMHO, I don't think it matters. In the end, it is the IO's decision. There are no guarantees either way, and similarly there should not be an issue either way. Personally, I would want all three to be standing at one counter than at different counters.
My worry is that if they go together, the officer may think that my mother-in-law is here again for baby sitting or something like that since her leaving USA is less than 6 months. I know that there is no such requirement that a person has to be outside US for a certain period of time before entering again, but I am still wondering would it cause any problems. On the flip side if they go to different counters they may let her in without any issues, since my mother-in-law doesn't know English (I am planning to give a letter for the purpose of her trip), Please suggest?
kriskris,
IMHO, I don't think it matters. In the end, it is the IO's decision. There are no guarantees either way, and similarly there should not be an issue either way. Personally, I would want all three to be standing at one counter than at different counters.
dresses Megan Fox photo by twinngoon
a1b2c3
08-04 06:10 PM
In this case you can not port the PD unless your subsequent I140 is approved ( ie your Feb-08 I-140 is approved) Once this get approved, you can port to already approved EB2-I140 to make your EB2-140 PD same as your EB3-I140 PD.
similar sit and my 485 was accepted with older pd!
what you say maybe true, but pls don't say it so confidently unless your are an attorney!
similar sit and my 485 was accepted with older pd!
what you say maybe true, but pls don't say it so confidently unless your are an attorney!
more...
makeup megan fox makeup and hair.
GCSeekerCT
08-22 07:35 AM
Again, I thank the community here for being supportive and hearing me out.
After considering your valuable suggestions, it only makes sense in waiting at this point, per my evaluation as well.
What are a few months in the game where I have waited this long ?
Just for the record, a major factor in this decision is that "I am not being abused by my current employer". (this is for someone in our situation who IS being abused or given a hard time by the employer)
If one wanted to, one can get out of a messy situation with the employer, thanks to AC21.
Thanks much
After considering your valuable suggestions, it only makes sense in waiting at this point, per my evaluation as well.
What are a few months in the game where I have waited this long ?
Just for the record, a major factor in this decision is that "I am not being abused by my current employer". (this is for someone in our situation who IS being abused or given a hard time by the employer)
If one wanted to, one can get out of a messy situation with the employer, thanks to AC21.
Thanks much
girlfriend megan fox makeup and hair.
kumar1305
01-23 12:35 PM
Can you provide more details...?
I work in south Florida. My employer is seriously involved in helping the people. They got a blood bank here and requested to donate. Even though I never did before, I thought it is much required now as I see many people are in the hospitals. They were even collecting the red blood cells sending plasma back in to the donor. This is done by some machine. But that was a bit painful and time consuming, I preferred to donate blood the tradition way. Money is collected by few employees on behalf of red cross and few other charities. So employees got some cakes, buns and you buy a piece for $10 or $20. Not only that we can donate our old usable clothing, blankets.
I work in south Florida. My employer is seriously involved in helping the people. They got a blood bank here and requested to donate. Even though I never did before, I thought it is much required now as I see many people are in the hospitals. They were even collecting the red blood cells sending plasma back in to the donor. This is done by some machine. But that was a bit painful and time consuming, I preferred to donate blood the tradition way. Money is collected by few employees on behalf of red cross and few other charities. So employees got some cakes, buns and you buy a piece for $10 or $20. Not only that we can donate our old usable clothing, blankets.
hairstyles megan fox makeup and hair.
priti8888
01-08 03:55 PM
Is there any relation between biometrics and the final green card approval time?
I have got annecdotal info from several friends. With one exception (because of a name check process that has taken over two years!) most people receive the green card around three months after the biometrics.
Is that the case?
not true. You can be approved only if your PD is current.
I have got annecdotal info from several friends. With one exception (because of a name check process that has taken over two years!) most people receive the green card around three months after the biometrics.
Is that the case?
not true. You can be approved only if your PD is current.
caond
05-07 10:32 AM
Thank you so much Raysaikat ! The below is the explanation for 22 C.F.R. � 62.42. Do you think it's applicable for my case ? Thanks again.
� 62.42 Transfer of program .
62.42(a)
(a) Program sponsors may, pursuant to the provisions set forth in this section, permit an exchange visitor to transfer from one designated program to another designated program.
62.42(b)
(b) The responsible officer of the program to which the exchange visitor is transferring:
(1) Shall verify the exchange visitor's visa status and program eligibility;
(2) Execute the Form DS-2019; and
(3) Secure the written release of the current sponsor.
62.42(c)
(c) Upon return of the completed Form DS-2019, the responsible officer of the program to which the exchange visitor has transferred shall provide:
(1) The exchange visitor his or her copy of the Form DS-2019; and
(2) A notification copy of such form to the Department of State.
� 62.42 Transfer of program .
62.42(a)
(a) Program sponsors may, pursuant to the provisions set forth in this section, permit an exchange visitor to transfer from one designated program to another designated program.
62.42(b)
(b) The responsible officer of the program to which the exchange visitor is transferring:
(1) Shall verify the exchange visitor's visa status and program eligibility;
(2) Execute the Form DS-2019; and
(3) Secure the written release of the current sponsor.
62.42(c)
(c) Upon return of the completed Form DS-2019, the responsible officer of the program to which the exchange visitor has transferred shall provide:
(1) The exchange visitor his or her copy of the Form DS-2019; and
(2) A notification copy of such form to the Department of State.
gcisadawg
09-25 02:45 PM
http://www.reason.com/images/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
Enjoy
The slide is very informative and catchy. But the title could have been better. I thought of sending this to my colleagues at work. But the title
"What part of legal immigration don't you understand?" stopped me.
It could have been "Legal immigration 101" or something to that effect.
Enjoy
The slide is very informative and catchy. But the title could have been better. I thought of sending this to my colleagues at work. But the title
"What part of legal immigration don't you understand?" stopped me.
It could have been "Legal immigration 101" or something to that effect.