ImmigrationAnswerMan
07-24 03:42 PM
Sanjay:
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
wallpaper cute life quotes and sayings
n2b
07-17 01:03 PM
DOS and USCIS are slow. But it would be really helpful if the IV code team can provide some update on our site. I believe over 2.5 hours have passed since the last update regarding some update in 1 hour. I guess we can't do anything if it takes more time but an update always helps! Thank you.
b2visahelp
07-09 03:34 PM
My parents went to request for visitor visa for a second time. They got rejected again. This time only my parents applied, without my brothers. They showed the VO a letter stating reasons why they won't immigrate to the US (have 3 sons in Indonesia, taking care of elderly parent and have business & properties in Indonesia). The letter also stated that parents only want a short duration visa just to attend my wedding. All questions VO asked was about me, that I got asylum and didn't come back. Now I really don't know what to do. Should I include a notarized letter from me stating that I will make sure my parents go back to Indonesia within the allowed time? My parents don't have the intention to immigrate but I don't know how they can convince the VO.
I would really appreciate your advice. Thank you so much!
I would really appreciate your advice. Thank you so much!
2011 life quotes and sayings for
katrina
06-09 02:33 PM
Guys,
I have approved EB3 LC and approved I 140 with PD JAN 2002. My wife has approved EB2 LC (Perm) and Approved I 140 with PD JAN 2006
As we represent one family can't my wife use my PD and apply I 485 under EB2.
for example If husband is born in a retrogressed country and wife in a non retrogressed country in that case, husband gets a free ride !
Why not in this case ? Just curious !
If your wife is from nonretrogress country which allow her to submit I485 it will be better for you to go with her case (don't have to worry about PD) since it will be current for EB2.
Once she get her greencard approved you will automatically get yours as well.
but as always this is just my opinion everything has still need to be consult with your lawyer.
I have approved EB3 LC and approved I 140 with PD JAN 2002. My wife has approved EB2 LC (Perm) and Approved I 140 with PD JAN 2006
As we represent one family can't my wife use my PD and apply I 485 under EB2.
for example If husband is born in a retrogressed country and wife in a non retrogressed country in that case, husband gets a free ride !
Why not in this case ? Just curious !
If your wife is from nonretrogress country which allow her to submit I485 it will be better for you to go with her case (don't have to worry about PD) since it will be current for EB2.
Once she get her greencard approved you will automatically get yours as well.
but as always this is just my opinion everything has still need to be consult with your lawyer.
more...
lccleared
08-26 06:04 PM
I have not received it either, where as my spouse and child got theirs 10 days back. Wonder whats happening, called up USCIS they asked me wait for couple of more days.
Rb_newsletter
07-13 05:31 PM
I am in similar situation but in GC process. My ex-colleagues are afraid to write experience letter for me.
Some colleagues who are still working in the same company doesn't want the company to know about the letter. They are afraid that company would take action if USCIS contacts the company to verify the letter.
Some colleagues who are out of the company are concerned about USCIS process. Basically they don't want to involve in any queries/RFEs from USCIS.
Some colleagues who are still working in the same company doesn't want the company to know about the letter. They are afraid that company would take action if USCIS contacts the company to verify the letter.
Some colleagues who are out of the company are concerned about USCIS process. Basically they don't want to involve in any queries/RFEs from USCIS.
more...
Libra
08-10 03:08 PM
from your signature it says you contributed and you voted 'no', am i missing something here?
\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/
2010 Wall sayings and designs ar
Becks
03-22 07:09 PM
You should be ok to re-enter when you have a valid AP (and valid visa/EAD if they ask) even though if you changed the jobs. I think it is risky though. We never know when will the rules change so its safe to file AC21. I did file AC21 but they never opened my AC21 file. They sent an RFE to my old employer(internal attorney) for employer letter after 1year of filing AC21. I had couple of LUDs so I thought they were for AC21 but not really. So strange things may happen. Some officers at port of entry may be too curious about these issues though if you have valid APs. They shouldnot deny the entry but you may have to go through the waiting. So my suggestion is do not delay AC21.
All,
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
All,
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
more...
LostInGCProcess
11-17 03:40 PM
Hello Gurus,
If I get my AP approved before I leave then NO Issues, I will again use my AP to re-enter USA in Feb 2009.
But let's assume I don't get it Approved before I leave.
a) Am I allowed to travel outside USA while my AP is Pending ?
Yes, You can travel.
b) If allowed, Can my AP get approved while I am outside US (i.e in India) ? Or will they Cancel my AP application?
It is very unlikely they would cancel your AP
c) I know I should get my H1B Visa stamping done while in India to re-enter on H1B Status. Do you see any problems that the consular officer/POE officer can create like
why did I leave the country while my AP application is Pending ?
No, you are perfectly alright to get H1B visa.
Why are applying for H1B Visa while you could have used your AP?
No, In fact applying for H1B is the right thing to do. Since you want to maintain your H status.
...
If I get my AP approved before I leave then NO Issues, I will again use my AP to re-enter USA in Feb 2009.
But let's assume I don't get it Approved before I leave.
a) Am I allowed to travel outside USA while my AP is Pending ?
Yes, You can travel.
b) If allowed, Can my AP get approved while I am outside US (i.e in India) ? Or will they Cancel my AP application?
It is very unlikely they would cancel your AP
c) I know I should get my H1B Visa stamping done while in India to re-enter on H1B Status. Do you see any problems that the consular officer/POE officer can create like
why did I leave the country while my AP application is Pending ?
No, you are perfectly alright to get H1B visa.
Why are applying for H1B Visa while you could have used your AP?
No, In fact applying for H1B is the right thing to do. Since you want to maintain your H status.
...
hair quotes and sayings about life
GooblyWoobly
07-18 07:23 PM
Even my case is similar. I requested my attorney to file my EAD and AP along with I-485 at the same time. But they did not apply for EAD and AP and but instead just filed I-485. Now they are saying they can't file for my EAD and AP until they get the I-485 receipt notice. What a mess??? Now I've pay lots of amount for EAD and AP. By the way my attroney is Murthy Law Firm. I bet yours would be the same
Actually my attorney is not Murthy. It's my employer's attorney, and they are pretty good. It was a company decision not to file EAD/AP since we were sure at that time our application will get rejected. It was just a mean to get onto the lawsuit beneficiary.
Actually my attorney is not Murthy. It's my employer's attorney, and they are pretty good. It was a company decision not to file EAD/AP since we were sure at that time our application will get rejected. It was just a mean to get onto the lawsuit beneficiary.
more...
pitha
07-18 11:08 AM
we lost a golden oportunity to do a fund drive. Historically during good news period a lot of members participated in the fund drive, but because the IV website is broken and the threads are displayed irratically and not in the latest order the funding drive threads are hidden and irrelevant one post threads are showing up. We might have lost out on a 10 to 20k worth of funding because of this mistake. I request the core team to please fix this immediately. A lot of new members have joined IV and they might not particiapate in the funding drive because of this thread mistake.
Let us all pledge to give atleast a $20, $50 monthly payments.
Let us all pledge to give atleast a $20, $50 monthly payments.
hot 2010 cute love quotes sayings
AVAKIL10
08-03 08:40 AM
It does look confusing though..Odd.
more...
house life quotes and sayings
Jerrome
02-20 05:47 PM
This will definitly help guys if they see some number crunching like the one i see below.
Category Per Year Quota Per Country Quota Actual Primary Applicant Number of Estimated applicants Number anticipated Years
Percentage Values 7% 48% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
EB2 40000 2800 1344 1000 1000 5000 10000 10000 16000 43000 31.99404762
EB3 40000 2800 1344 10000 16000 16000 16000 16000 16000 90000 66.96428571
You can also Quote this in the home page of IV for people to see.
Category Per Year Quota Per Country Quota Actual Primary Applicant Number of Estimated applicants Number anticipated Years
Percentage Values 7% 48% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
EB2 40000 2800 1344 1000 1000 5000 10000 10000 16000 43000 31.99404762
EB3 40000 2800 1344 10000 16000 16000 16000 16000 16000 90000 66.96428571
You can also Quote this in the home page of IV for people to see.
tattoo Life MySpace Quotes Seek Codes
fcres
12-10 02:40 PM
What matters is a permanenet job offer letter and duties should match the
labor.
Rajesh Alex
rajeshalex: Where does it say job duties should match? I was under the understanding that the occupational classification should be same/similar.
labor.
Rajesh Alex
rajeshalex: Where does it say job duties should match? I was under the understanding that the occupational classification should be same/similar.
more...
pictures wallpaper love and life quotes
chanduv23
02-17 09:32 PM
We need to do something to make him change his mind or at least soften his stand. It should not be anything sarcastic. I think flower campaign will have element of being sarcastic or even being critical.
It should be something simple and humble. May be a meeting of IL members with his staff and then if we get an opening, meeting with Sen. Durbin himself.
This can be followed by something like letter campaign on the lines of admin fix campaign.
It has been tried, they are not open to talk
It should be something simple and humble. May be a meeting of IL members with his staff and then if we get an opening, meeting with Sen. Durbin himself.
This can be followed by something like letter campaign on the lines of admin fix campaign.
It has been tried, they are not open to talk
dresses quotes and sayings about love
drirshad
07-29 06:50 AM
old pork chops arn't gonna get any good ideas so better show some courtesy ......
more...
makeup sayings/quotes: and, frinds,
eb3_nepa
10-13 03:11 PM
I have ALWAYS gone in T-shirt and Jeans and never had a problem. They dont really care about your appearance, although it is a good idea to dress decently.
girlfriend life quotes and sayings for
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hairstyles life quotes and sayings for
prom2
10-02 09:07 PM
So ND definitely matters. Check your position in queue using ND. Not RD.
So in my opinion with current situation PD matters in the end. Luck matters first. :(
I am agree with you.
So in my opinion with current situation PD matters in the end. Luck matters first. :(
I am agree with you.
starving_dog
06-13 01:17 PM
Was that 2007 you were referring to?
xu1
08-24 07:40 PM
Here's a link to a presentation that IV prepared in May for lawmakers. Page 13 has visa availabilities for indians in FY05. Take a look.. The slides has made a strong case with lots of facts compiled together. You can present the slides to your lawmakers or their staff, or the media if you get a chance..
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/ImmigrationVoice_Background_for_Media.pdf
Page 13:
soft quota---- ---- india actual approval---- spill over from ROW
2,803 ---- ---- ---- 6,336 ---- ---- ---- 3,533
2,803 ---- ---- ---- 16,687 ---- ---- ---- 13,884
2,803 ---- ---- ---- 23,399 ---- ---- ---- 20,596
Total
8,408 ---- ---- ---- 46,422 ---- ---- ---- 38,014
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/ImmigrationVoice_Background_for_Media.pdf
Page 13:
soft quota---- ---- india actual approval---- spill over from ROW
2,803 ---- ---- ---- 6,336 ---- ---- ---- 3,533
2,803 ---- ---- ---- 16,687 ---- ---- ---- 13,884
2,803 ---- ---- ---- 23,399 ---- ---- ---- 20,596
Total
8,408 ---- ---- ---- 46,422 ---- ---- ---- 38,014
No comments:
Post a Comment