nkalpana
02-12 02:40 AM
... do we have to think out of the box to identify what is really the problem?
What are they doing with our documents... where are they storing it? whjat security are they giving to our sensitive docs? what is the process by which they are clearing the backlog, when everyday they get loads and loads of new work??
shahuja... we are still waiting
What are they doing with our documents... where are they storing it? whjat security are they giving to our sensitive docs? what is the process by which they are clearing the backlog, when everyday they get loads and loads of new work??
shahuja... we are still waiting
wallpaper database management system
Canadian_Dream
06-21 02:38 PM
The contents of this postings are based on what I have read from various Lawyer's website and my lawyer's suggestions.
Multiple I-485 Fillings Scenario:
1. Two I-485 for the with the same primary applicant
Case a: One I-140/I-485 Pending with another employer and one I-140/I-485 to be filed in July with the current employer.
Case b: One I-140/I-485 Pending due to substituted labor (and cannot be expedited because premium processing not available). Another I-485 to be filed based on approved I-140 (on one's own labor). Both from the same employer.
2. Two I-485 with different primary applicants (Primary on one and dependent on other)
Case a: I-140 for one is approved while other's pending
Case b: Both I-140 Approved
Case c: Both filling concurrently in June
Pros and Cons
Scenario 1, Case a: In this case there is a substantial risk that I-485 filed with first employer might lead to issues esp if I-140 is not approved. Thus is a good idea to file another one with current employer. (Pro)
Scenario 1, Case a: How can one Adjust the Status from two employer at the same time. (Con)
Scenario 1, Case b: Since first I-485 application is already filed and I-140's outcome is not known. It is a good idea to file another one as a fall back option. If one waits for the outcome of first I-140 and it is denied and then it will be too late to file another I-485 because dates might have retrogressed.
Scenario 2, Case a: One with the approved I-140 should file I-485 with other as dependent.
Scenario 2, Case b: I-485 for both is almost ensured and thus filling two will give added cover in case something happens. One might have a better priority date than other. (Pro)
Scenario 2, Case b: Job loss of one would still allow other with AC-21 benefits. (Pro)
Scenario 2, Case b:Only one of the two partners has to stick to the job description and other is free to pursue anything (including studies).
Scenario 2, Case c: Use I-140 Premium Processing on at least one application for added certainty.
Summary of Pros and Cons
Pros:
1. More flexibility as there are two applications to fall back on.
2. Only opportunity to file EAD/AP before retrogression kicks in.
3. Useful if I-140 is pending and outcome of it is unknown.
4. There are NO USCIS memos that prohibits such filling explicitly.
5. Many lawyers have recommended this as a best option.
6. It has been mentioned that USCIS cancels the second I-485 after approving the other. That makes this a hassle free option.
7. If there are issues with multiple filling one of the application can be withdrawn.
8. If later on it turns out two application is a norm and right thing to do and retrogression hits one has no one to blame but himself.
Cons:
1. Cost of two fillings (if paid by self)
2. There have been indications by lawyers that two fillings could lead to unnecessary delays and interviews.
3. Apart from delays there has been indications that USCIS might issue an
RFE and ask to choose one.
Conclusion
========
There is nothing wrong with two filings, worst case scenario could be an RFE from USCIS to choose one. Best case scenario is USCIS upon approving one cancels other. Two filings indeed give you a peace of mind and reduce risk during the process. It doesn't change the outcome (like your application will not be denied just because you have filed two). If a little delay is acceptable to you as a price you pay to reduce a bigger risk and added benefits then multiple filing is right thing to do.
Multiple I-485 Fillings Scenario:
1. Two I-485 for the with the same primary applicant
Case a: One I-140/I-485 Pending with another employer and one I-140/I-485 to be filed in July with the current employer.
Case b: One I-140/I-485 Pending due to substituted labor (and cannot be expedited because premium processing not available). Another I-485 to be filed based on approved I-140 (on one's own labor). Both from the same employer.
2. Two I-485 with different primary applicants (Primary on one and dependent on other)
Case a: I-140 for one is approved while other's pending
Case b: Both I-140 Approved
Case c: Both filling concurrently in June
Pros and Cons
Scenario 1, Case a: In this case there is a substantial risk that I-485 filed with first employer might lead to issues esp if I-140 is not approved. Thus is a good idea to file another one with current employer. (Pro)
Scenario 1, Case a: How can one Adjust the Status from two employer at the same time. (Con)
Scenario 1, Case b: Since first I-485 application is already filed and I-140's outcome is not known. It is a good idea to file another one as a fall back option. If one waits for the outcome of first I-140 and it is denied and then it will be too late to file another I-485 because dates might have retrogressed.
Scenario 2, Case a: One with the approved I-140 should file I-485 with other as dependent.
Scenario 2, Case b: I-485 for both is almost ensured and thus filling two will give added cover in case something happens. One might have a better priority date than other. (Pro)
Scenario 2, Case b: Job loss of one would still allow other with AC-21 benefits. (Pro)
Scenario 2, Case b:Only one of the two partners has to stick to the job description and other is free to pursue anything (including studies).
Scenario 2, Case c: Use I-140 Premium Processing on at least one application for added certainty.
Summary of Pros and Cons
Pros:
1. More flexibility as there are two applications to fall back on.
2. Only opportunity to file EAD/AP before retrogression kicks in.
3. Useful if I-140 is pending and outcome of it is unknown.
4. There are NO USCIS memos that prohibits such filling explicitly.
5. Many lawyers have recommended this as a best option.
6. It has been mentioned that USCIS cancels the second I-485 after approving the other. That makes this a hassle free option.
7. If there are issues with multiple filling one of the application can be withdrawn.
8. If later on it turns out two application is a norm and right thing to do and retrogression hits one has no one to blame but himself.
Cons:
1. Cost of two fillings (if paid by self)
2. There have been indications by lawyers that two fillings could lead to unnecessary delays and interviews.
3. Apart from delays there has been indications that USCIS might issue an
RFE and ask to choose one.
Conclusion
========
There is nothing wrong with two filings, worst case scenario could be an RFE from USCIS to choose one. Best case scenario is USCIS upon approving one cancels other. Two filings indeed give you a peace of mind and reduce risk during the process. It doesn't change the outcome (like your application will not be denied just because you have filed two). If a little delay is acceptable to you as a price you pay to reduce a bigger risk and added benefits then multiple filing is right thing to do.
kuhelica2000
01-26 05:46 PM
The reason transit visas are required in the UK is that many passengers with an intention to transit the UK have stayed. The transit visa was introduced as a way of making sure (as much as possible) that the passenger has the intention and the ability to transit the UK and to enter a third country.
-->How does a transit visa prevents someone from staying in the UK. "Transit" means you are not even getting out of the airport. People who overstay in the UK likely entered the UK on a UK visa
It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the transit visa requirement because it is UK law. Everyone has a choice whether or not to transit the UK. Going back to the original post, to book a ticket without researching visa requirements and then trying to deflect personal responsibility by blaming the visa requirement is ridiculous
Yes, it matters. If we can educate our fellow members about the hassel of transit through UK, they will avoid UK if they have other options. And that will make UK rethink their policies.
It really is amazing how much hot air has been generated on this thread over a well established transit visa requirement.
The reason transit visas are required in the UK is that many passengers with an intention to transit the UK have stayed. The transit visa was introduced as a way of making sure (as much as possible) that the passenger has the intention and the ability to transit the UK and to enter a third country.
The list of nationals that are required to have a visa to transit the UK represents a list of countries where there has been a particular problem with over stayers. It is not race based, but merely an effort to target the problem.
It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the transit visa requirement because it is UK law. Everyone has a choice whether or not to transit the UK. Going back to the original post, to book a ticket without researching visa requirements and then trying to deflect personal responsibility by blaming the visa requirement is ridiculous.
-->How does a transit visa prevents someone from staying in the UK. "Transit" means you are not even getting out of the airport. People who overstay in the UK likely entered the UK on a UK visa
It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the transit visa requirement because it is UK law. Everyone has a choice whether or not to transit the UK. Going back to the original post, to book a ticket without researching visa requirements and then trying to deflect personal responsibility by blaming the visa requirement is ridiculous
Yes, it matters. If we can educate our fellow members about the hassel of transit through UK, they will avoid UK if they have other options. And that will make UK rethink their policies.
It really is amazing how much hot air has been generated on this thread over a well established transit visa requirement.
The reason transit visas are required in the UK is that many passengers with an intention to transit the UK have stayed. The transit visa was introduced as a way of making sure (as much as possible) that the passenger has the intention and the ability to transit the UK and to enter a third country.
The list of nationals that are required to have a visa to transit the UK represents a list of countries where there has been a particular problem with over stayers. It is not race based, but merely an effort to target the problem.
It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the transit visa requirement because it is UK law. Everyone has a choice whether or not to transit the UK. Going back to the original post, to book a ticket without researching visa requirements and then trying to deflect personal responsibility by blaming the visa requirement is ridiculous.
2011 DBMS ConteXt: Architecture of
arnab221
08-20 02:38 PM
Metro PCS offers the same service on a cell phone .
Unlimited local and long distance + unlimited international + month to month service .
http://www.metropcs.com/plans/
The problem is with coverage , some people living in remote midwest areas might not get coverage .
Does anybody use the unlimited international plans . Can you please give some feedback ?
Unlimited local and long distance + unlimited international + month to month service .
http://www.metropcs.com/plans/
The problem is with coverage , some people living in remote midwest areas might not get coverage .
Does anybody use the unlimited international plans . Can you please give some feedback ?
more...
fatjoe
10-05 01:58 PM
Some of us with 2004 are still waiting.
Hi vikki76, bpositive, dipika, caliguy, leoindiano:
If I am correct, your PDs are current, right? Do you guys know if your case was pre-adjudicated and/or assigned to an IO? I keep reading from the forums that some apps with PDs as late as Dec 2004 and a couple of Jan 2005 got approved. Wondering why the earlier (eg. mine is July 04) not approved yet. Could we all join togther and write a letter to Napolitino(Thanks to SoP for the idea) and ask her to take some action on our cases?
Hi vikki76, bpositive, dipika, caliguy, leoindiano:
If I am correct, your PDs are current, right? Do you guys know if your case was pre-adjudicated and/or assigned to an IO? I keep reading from the forums that some apps with PDs as late as Dec 2004 and a couple of Jan 2005 got approved. Wondering why the earlier (eg. mine is July 04) not approved yet. Could we all join togther and write a letter to Napolitino(Thanks to SoP for the idea) and ask her to take some action on our cases?
lostinspace
01-26 01:08 PM
It really is amazing how much hot air has been generated on this thread over a well established transit visa requirement.
The reason transit visas are required in the UK is that many passengers with an intention to transit the UK have stayed. The transit visa was introduced as a way of making sure (as much as possible) that the passenger has the intention and the ability to transit the UK and to enter a third country.
The list of nationals that are required to have a visa to transit the UK represents a list of countries where there has been a particular problem with over stayers. It is not race based, but merely an effort to target the problem.
It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the transit visa requirement because it is UK law. Everyone has a choice whether or not to transit the UK. Going back to the original post, to book a ticket without researching visa requirements and then trying to deflect personal responsibility by blaming the visa requirement is ridiculous.
The reason transit visas are required in the UK is that many passengers with an intention to transit the UK have stayed. The transit visa was introduced as a way of making sure (as much as possible) that the passenger has the intention and the ability to transit the UK and to enter a third country.
The list of nationals that are required to have a visa to transit the UK represents a list of countries where there has been a particular problem with over stayers. It is not race based, but merely an effort to target the problem.
It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the transit visa requirement because it is UK law. Everyone has a choice whether or not to transit the UK. Going back to the original post, to book a ticket without researching visa requirements and then trying to deflect personal responsibility by blaming the visa requirement is ridiculous.
more...
Ramba
08-21 05:25 PM
. The ambiguity of the law for the preference of vertical vs. horizontal spill-over allowed them to do that.
There is no ambiguity in law. The law is clear. One law (and one rule) should yield one interpretation. If someone interperting the languge of law differently; then that is their mistake. Thats what DOS was doing in between 2001 and 2006. This could be possible for them because no one was going after DOS. Now somehow they realized (or some affected applicants notified DOS). If the old practice is a result of correct interpretation of law, why they should change now? This is very high sensitive area; DOS might have not changed their practice without risk analysis. They should not care about how much retrogression in India; They should only care about implementing the law correctly, as becuase they are executive branch of government not legislative branch to worry about retrogression.
There is no ambiguity in law. The law is clear. One law (and one rule) should yield one interpretation. If someone interperting the languge of law differently; then that is their mistake. Thats what DOS was doing in between 2001 and 2006. This could be possible for them because no one was going after DOS. Now somehow they realized (or some affected applicants notified DOS). If the old practice is a result of correct interpretation of law, why they should change now? This is very high sensitive area; DOS might have not changed their practice without risk analysis. They should not care about how much retrogression in India; They should only care about implementing the law correctly, as becuase they are executive branch of government not legislative branch to worry about retrogression.
2010 SQL3D Conceptual Architecture
jbr
03-10 05:36 PM
We could also do a signature/petition campaign that would focus on 'American Citizens' supporting our effort. We should aim at getting a lot of signatures. Afterall there have to be hundreds of thousands of formerly H1B holders who are citizens now; at least they would support our effort.
more...
bkn96
11-19 04:58 PM
Applying MTR is very expensive, anyone know any good lawyer around NJ?
hair Figure E-10 Browse DBMS for
mirage
08-20 09:20 PM
Yes true but passing of Vise arecapture bill is like waiting for 'Kumbhkaran' to wake up, they've been sleeping for 4-5 years what is the gurantee that they'll not sleep for another 5 years on the immigration bills ? Also, how is the spillover going to be distributed among EB3? First EB3 ROW and then EB3 C/I as in the old system?
Personally, I think the visa recapture bill would help things quite a bit.
Personally, I think the visa recapture bill would help things quite a bit.
more...
nrk
10-22 09:53 AM
Thanks,
Two of my friends still waiting for GC, they have PD August 2004 and Nov 2004, i will pass this information to them (They were not on this forum)
Yeah, I believe we still have people from 2004 waiting (and that includes me!!)
Here are some ways of contacting USCIS - Immigration: 12 Ways to Contact USCIS and FBI to Check Case Status (http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/contact-uscis-fbi.php#)
Good luck to all!
Two of my friends still waiting for GC, they have PD August 2004 and Nov 2004, i will pass this information to them (They were not on this forum)
Yeah, I believe we still have people from 2004 waiting (and that includes me!!)
Here are some ways of contacting USCIS - Immigration: 12 Ways to Contact USCIS and FBI to Check Case Status (http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/contact-uscis-fbi.php#)
Good luck to all!
hot Sample federated DBMS
nishant81
11-06 04:27 PM
Knowing the fact that so many applicants have been waiting for YEARSSSS and USCIS not doing anything about makes me sick just thinking about it. How can agency be so ignorant and continue to make thousands of people live in dark black hole for years? Has anyone heard about the new plans or action taken by either agency to reduce the backlog. According to what ombudsman said on july 20 2007 teleconference USCIS will dramatically reduce the backlog for people waiting 33 months or longer in immediate future, apparently it has been 4 months and nothing seems to have been moved yet.
more...
house system architecture above
vikki76
10-20 07:09 PM
Viki,
Same here, i got a similar response too... If they are true to their words abt under review, we shud b fine...
But the problem is, they mite b stating this under review for all cases to avoid repeated requests and hence the issue..
Is ur case also at NSC?
How has ur luck been with the POJ method? Have u always recvd the same informn from all IOs?
I always get a different response wen i talk to an IO at NSC...
I got to know that my case is pre-adjudicated and with IO since Sept 20, 2009. But this information is not helpful at all as people have got GC's as early as Sept 01.
Now, whenever I call-I get same msg- that my case is with IO and nothing can be done be done to expedite it.
I have changed my employer only once since filing for 485 and been only with Fortune 500 companies as permanent employees,don't know what is holding up the case- all my coworkers got it by Sept 15th.
My case is at NSC.
Same here, i got a similar response too... If they are true to their words abt under review, we shud b fine...
But the problem is, they mite b stating this under review for all cases to avoid repeated requests and hence the issue..
Is ur case also at NSC?
How has ur luck been with the POJ method? Have u always recvd the same informn from all IOs?
I always get a different response wen i talk to an IO at NSC...
I got to know that my case is pre-adjudicated and with IO since Sept 20, 2009. But this information is not helpful at all as people have got GC's as early as Sept 01.
Now, whenever I call-I get same msg- that my case is with IO and nothing can be done be done to expedite it.
I have changed my employer only once since filing for 485 and been only with Fortune 500 companies as permanent employees,don't know what is holding up the case- all my coworkers got it by Sept 15th.
My case is at NSC.
tattoo System Architecture
hopelessGC
08-20 03:21 PM
I am already using Vonage and spend an extra $30 per month on phone card. I am salivating at the prospect of saving the $30 per month :D
more...
pictures the DBMS) from the Logical
nc14
09-09 03:53 PM
Took 45 minutes to cover all of them but time well spent. GO IV GO...
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - took the message
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - My congressman, wanted me to leave a VM but I will try again. Called again and it went great.
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065 - took the message but said we cannot give a response as I am not from his constituency.
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - left a VM
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126 - called and spoke to a lady, she took the message but still tranferred to judiciary committe number, which no one picked.
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111 - left a VM
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755 - took the message
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 - took the message
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365 - took the message
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576 - took the message
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811 - VM
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035 - took the message with the zipcode
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431 - took the message
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203 - took the message
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 - took the message
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 - VM
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676 - Took the address and details.
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176 - took the message (said the bill is under judiciary and under review)
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 - DIDNT CALL HIM
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716 - took the message
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021 - took the message
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176 - VM
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351 - took the message
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911 - took the message
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 - took the message
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401 - took the message (didnt ask for anyting although I am from her state)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 - took the message with address
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 - took the message, very nice lady asked about the bill in detail.
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 - took the message, very nice guy asked in detail what the bill is about.
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 - took the message, asked about the bill in detail.
WOOOHOO, my first time making all the calls. My confidence was sky high after the first 5 calls. Very much worth it.
..................................................
$470 till date
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - took the message
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - My congressman, wanted me to leave a VM but I will try again. Called again and it went great.
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065 - took the message but said we cannot give a response as I am not from his constituency.
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - left a VM
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126 - called and spoke to a lady, she took the message but still tranferred to judiciary committe number, which no one picked.
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111 - left a VM
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755 - took the message
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 - took the message
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365 - took the message
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576 - took the message
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811 - VM
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035 - took the message with the zipcode
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431 - took the message
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203 - took the message
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 - took the message
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 - VM
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676 - Took the address and details.
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176 - took the message (said the bill is under judiciary and under review)
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 - DIDNT CALL HIM
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716 - took the message
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021 - took the message
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176 - VM
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351 - took the message
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911 - took the message
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 - took the message
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401 - took the message (didnt ask for anyting although I am from her state)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 - took the message with address
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 - took the message, very nice lady asked about the bill in detail.
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 - took the message, very nice guy asked in detail what the bill is about.
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 - took the message, asked about the bill in detail.
WOOOHOO, my first time making all the calls. My confidence was sky high after the first 5 calls. Very much worth it.
..................................................
$470 till date
dresses the dbms adapters in .
nrk
09-13 01:07 PM
You are right on the approval notice sent - cards sent
1. It took me 5 working days to receive the cards. (3rd status changed to card production ordered and on 11th the cards are in my mail box)
nrk, how long did it take after the status got updated to "Approval Notice Sent" to the cards received by you? I am assuming that "Approval Notice Sent" on 485 is actually mailing the cards out to the applicant. ( That is what happens on 765 (EAD) application all the time).
1. It took me 5 working days to receive the cards. (3rd status changed to card production ordered and on 11th the cards are in my mail box)
nrk, how long did it take after the status got updated to "Approval Notice Sent" to the cards received by you? I am assuming that "Approval Notice Sent" on 485 is actually mailing the cards out to the applicant. ( That is what happens on 765 (EAD) application all the time).
more...
makeup The goal of this architecture
yabadaba
07-10 10:22 PM
the washington post article is brilliant. thanks to Xiyun Yang for an excellent fair balanced article.
girlfriend Database Management System
aroranuj
01-09 11:51 AM
Over the past couple of days I have had 10 of my friends/colleagues who have signed the letter and they have been mailed out to the president. I also have copies of them to mail out to IV once I have all that I can get..
I plan to call my Senators & Congressman's office's today too. I believe we need to get through to our friends and colleagues and talk about the issues in this letter. I have yet to come across one person who does not agree that our situation needs the attention of the administration.
I know I can get a few more of these letters signed by the end of this week.
Anyone out there who has more letters going out??:D
Lets have some healthy competition!
I plan to call my Senators & Congressman's office's today too. I believe we need to get through to our friends and colleagues and talk about the issues in this letter. I have yet to come across one person who does not agree that our situation needs the attention of the administration.
I know I can get a few more of these letters signed by the end of this week.
Anyone out there who has more letters going out??:D
Lets have some healthy competition!
hairstyles SQL Server Architecture
anotherone
01-29 06:41 PM
your ad shows a company that has advertised for no EAD, GC h1b etc., which is legal, AFAIK.
It is not a small difference, but not interviewing someone based on whatever is probably their prerogative (even this may have certain limitations like -you cannot say "no women" et6c.,), visa status is not considered a protected class... again AFAIK. They probably cannot say no GC, but CAN say only citizens because of some clearance required etc.,
This is different from getting someone through the interview loop, making an offer and THEN saying sorry we ont hire you now because of EAD. That is BS. As for saying no to H1B, we have all been there, a company that does not want to sponsor cannot be MADE to do it.
I was asking for a list of companies that have refused to work with EADs and have been cited for it or fined etc.,
It is not a small difference, but not interviewing someone based on whatever is probably their prerogative (even this may have certain limitations like -you cannot say "no women" et6c.,), visa status is not considered a protected class... again AFAIK. They probably cannot say no GC, but CAN say only citizens because of some clearance required etc.,
This is different from getting someone through the interview loop, making an offer and THEN saying sorry we ont hire you now because of EAD. That is BS. As for saying no to H1B, we have all been there, a company that does not want to sponsor cannot be MADE to do it.
I was asking for a list of companies that have refused to work with EADs and have been cited for it or fined etc.,
bkn96
11-26 09:37 AM
And you did not understand that this is a way for the lawyer to advertise himself.
He may have seen many people worried about this issue on IV and he wrote on his site . Now you are becoming his agent and posting on this site. This is not a news. It is only a comment. It can be true/partially true or partially false.
To me this issue is a non issue for which IV is working and this lawyer is blowing out of proportion. Only handful of people got denials and that too because their Desi employer acted in revenge for them leaving the company.
I am not an agent, but one of the victim and looking for solutions. This may not be issue for you, but issue for many of us. I am sure you think your issue is important than others and I don't complain.. But this an issue..
Again whatever many be the reason, due to desi employer or USCIS we suffer and we are on the hook all the time..
He may have seen many people worried about this issue on IV and he wrote on his site . Now you are becoming his agent and posting on this site. This is not a news. It is only a comment. It can be true/partially true or partially false.
To me this issue is a non issue for which IV is working and this lawyer is blowing out of proportion. Only handful of people got denials and that too because their Desi employer acted in revenge for them leaving the company.
I am not an agent, but one of the victim and looking for solutions. This may not be issue for you, but issue for many of us. I am sure you think your issue is important than others and I don't complain.. But this an issue..
Again whatever many be the reason, due to desi employer or USCIS we suffer and we are on the hook all the time..
nkalpana
01-31 04:06 AM
My Goodness... Prashanth! this is a total mess..
This is worse than our software product deadlines!!
Dont know whether to laugh or to cry!
Regards,
NK
This is worse than our software product deadlines!!
Dont know whether to laugh or to cry!
Regards,
NK
