DesBhakt
03-09 06:03 PM
:D Fun post psaxena
Nice dream but come to reality, dont even dream of GC till year 2019...... (if it goes in current pace).
Since OP is talking about GC at retirement his dream is about the year 2019 or beyond.
Nice dream but come to reality, dont even dream of GC till year 2019...... (if it goes in current pace).
Since OP is talking about GC at retirement his dream is about the year 2019 or beyond.
wallpaper selena gomez who says music video. selena gomez who says music
gc28262
12-19 12:03 PM
Not before you give yours back. you are a temp anyways. you don't even have to surrender your gc.
Practice what you preach.
BTW myself and majority of members on this forum hasn't replaced any American worker.
Practice what you preach.
BTW myself and majority of members on this forum hasn't replaced any American worker.
iq5203
01-20 07:10 PM
In COBRA, you would have to pay the *entire* insurance cost from your pocket. It may comes out $500-$1000 to be a month per person depending on the state and coverage. Unless you have a known condition that makes you very risky, it is usually too expensive to carry forth.
Note by the way, the catch of some individual insurances (not COBRA). Other than being costlier, many of them consider each period as a "new" enrollment (even if you are getting the same insurance from the same company), and therefore, they will declare anything that was found in the previous period as "pre-existing" in the new period and deny coverage.
Read fine prints very carefully.
According to federal law, if you've had coverage for 6 months prior to changing your coverage to the new insurance, they can't refuse to cover pre existing conditions. They may try, I just had to fight this out with CIGNA. They lost. However if you let your coverage lapse, you can get hit with this.
Note by the way, the catch of some individual insurances (not COBRA). Other than being costlier, many of them consider each period as a "new" enrollment (even if you are getting the same insurance from the same company), and therefore, they will declare anything that was found in the previous period as "pre-existing" in the new period and deny coverage.
Read fine prints very carefully.
According to federal law, if you've had coverage for 6 months prior to changing your coverage to the new insurance, they can't refuse to cover pre existing conditions. They may try, I just had to fight this out with CIGNA. They lost. However if you let your coverage lapse, you can get hit with this.
2011 shoes from selena gomez to
carolva77
05-27 11:50 AM
up
more...
axp817
07-05 11:31 AM
Can these 200 please contribute to the agenda laid out by IV, instead?
thanks,
thanks,
joshraj
10-09 10:17 PM
At least got something today :)
Filed: July 27
Center: Neb
RD: Not Yet - Got Tranfer Notice - To Texas
FP: Not Yet
EAD: Not Yet
I140 - Pending at Nebraska
Filed: July 27
Center: Neb
RD: Not Yet - Got Tranfer Notice - To Texas
FP: Not Yet
EAD: Not Yet
I140 - Pending at Nebraska
more...
bang
01-07 05:03 PM
Thank you all for your repiles. I have asked my wife to talk to their lawyer directly.
It is not a rule, but it depends on how the approval is given by USCIS. If you get a extended I94 along with the H1 approval then you are all set, if you get an approval with no I94 then you need to get a stamping before starting work. Consult lawyers they will explain it better.
My wife went through the H4 - H1 Conversion which got approved last week, we are still wating to see the approval document.
It is not a rule, but it depends on how the approval is given by USCIS. If you get a extended I94 along with the H1 approval then you are all set, if you get an approval with no I94 then you need to get a stamping before starting work. Consult lawyers they will explain it better.
My wife went through the H4 - H1 Conversion which got approved last week, we are still wating to see the approval document.
2010 selena gomez shoes \\\\quot;who
gene-O
10-20 05:57 PM
Still looking for a knowledgeable response specifically to the questions asked.
more...
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
hair selena gomez who says shoes.
Munna Bhai
02-08 11:59 AM
You want to keep your 140 intact for 2 reasons:
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
Thanks, please let everyone know if by changing lawyers is there anyway of protecting I-140 from being revoked?? or is there any other way out??
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
Thanks, please let everyone know if by changing lawyers is there anyway of protecting I-140 from being revoked?? or is there any other way out??
more...
jonty_11
02-13 05:42 PM
call customer care USCIS and ask for an update/status
hot selena gomez who says shoes.
needhelp!
02-13 12:41 PM
We need a few catchy words to put in a community newsletter. This is for people who don't know about IV. It has to be something that will make people click on the text and come to IV website.
Here are a few suggestions I have got so far:
"Do H1Bs have the right to free speech? Check out ImmigrationVoice.org letter campaign working for you."
"Please join Immigration Voice and participate actively in the Administrative Fix campaign"
"If you are in this country legally, prepare for getting whacked"
"Is GREEN CARD holding up your future and career? - Liberate yourself by participating in the Administrative Fix campaign done by Immigration Voice.
Come on guys.. let your creative juices flow.. but keep it very short.
Here are a few suggestions I have got so far:
"Do H1Bs have the right to free speech? Check out ImmigrationVoice.org letter campaign working for you."
"Please join Immigration Voice and participate actively in the Administrative Fix campaign"
"If you are in this country legally, prepare for getting whacked"
"Is GREEN CARD holding up your future and career? - Liberate yourself by participating in the Administrative Fix campaign done by Immigration Voice.
Come on guys.. let your creative juices flow.. but keep it very short.
more...
house selena gomez who says shoes.
snathan
02-01 11:01 AM
BUY AND READ THE BOOK TITLED:
"INVESTMENT FOR DUMMIES" whose GC is in process and priority date in backlogged due to retrogression and by the way married to husband who's cash pooping machine but can't figure out what to do with money.
Its along title but you sure can get a good deal on amazon.
Also consider SAM's Teach yourself investments in 21 days...:D
"INVESTMENT FOR DUMMIES" whose GC is in process and priority date in backlogged due to retrogression and by the way married to husband who's cash pooping machine but can't figure out what to do with money.
Its along title but you sure can get a good deal on amazon.
Also consider SAM's Teach yourself investments in 21 days...:D
tattoo selena gomez who says shoes. shoes in selena gomez who says
kartikiran
05-06 11:08 AM
if a couple of members attend with immigration voice badge on their shirts, this could be a good platform for immigrationvoice as a group to get noticed.
Maybe people who are living around Washington DC neighborhood can attend to represent IV and their registration can be sponsored by IV.
Just a thought. As we push our agenda, IV as an organization must get noticed in more places where USCIS is putting its face on.
Maybe people who are living around Washington DC neighborhood can attend to represent IV and their registration can be sponsored by IV.
Just a thought. As we push our agenda, IV as an organization must get noticed in more places where USCIS is putting its face on.
more...
pictures selena gomez who says shoes.
reddy_73
10-02 02:59 PM
even i have the same thing, mine was received by NSC and receipt mailed by NSC.
section says as UNKNOWN, called USCIS and she does not know any thing about it
section says as UNKNOWN, called USCIS and she does not know any thing about it
dresses shoes in selena gomez who says
frostrated
08-10 12:00 PM
A person holding H-4 can attend college in the U.S. In fact, some colleges offer in-state tuition for H-4 students. Check Brooklyn College for instance. INA does not specifically disallow from attending college of H-4 nor H-1 and colleges are aware of this. So if your wife is doing this only because she would like to pursue degree, I would suggest she explores the options and if possible remains on H-4, which is a dual intent status.
Best Wishes,
true, but she will not be able to work while on H4. She will also not be able to apply for any internships or work on campus.
Best Wishes,
true, but she will not be able to work while on H4. She will also not be able to apply for any internships or work on campus.
more...
makeup selena gomez who says shoes.
looivy
08-15 11:24 AM
The answer to the FAQ clearly states that you should be fine and expect some processing delays. I am not sure what else you would like to know.
What I am looking for is how do they physically transfer the application? I am afraid of dealing with another incompetent organization such as USPS. Also, what type of processing delays should I expect?
How recent were the guidelines that I-485 be sent to the same center as I-140? Were these guidelines applicable on July 2nd.
What I am looking for is how do they physically transfer the application? I am afraid of dealing with another incompetent organization such as USPS. Also, what type of processing delays should I expect?
How recent were the guidelines that I-485 be sent to the same center as I-140? Were these guidelines applicable on July 2nd.
girlfriend selena gomez who says shoes.
gc_75
07-17 04:45 PM
Here is the link:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3269.html
Please refer to following para about July bulletin:
D. JULY EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3269.html
Please refer to following para about July bulletin:
D. JULY EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
hairstyles shoes in selena gomez who says
nrakkati
08-15 02:23 PM
Is your packet is signed by R.Williams? where is your I-140 approved? and what is your PD?
I-140 approved at NSC
PD is OCT EB3
I-140 approved at NSC
PD is OCT EB3
micofrost
07-12 01:34 AM
"We continue to pay for Your Social Security
But the presidency gives illegals over legals more priority"
But the presidency gives illegals over legals more priority"
gulute
10-02 02:39 PM
Did you use an approved labor?
the RFE was on Ability to Pay
the RFE was on Ability to Pay
